University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An organizational culture approach to the study of individual power and its use

(USC Thesis Other)

An organizational culture approach to the study of individual power and its use

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF
INDIVIDUAL POWER AND ITS USE
by
Sirish S. Mani
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Communication Theory and Research)
V May 1988
UMI Number: DP22432
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete m anuscript
and there are missing pages, th ese will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP22432
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQ uest LLC.
789 E ast Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90089
CM
" 3 8
M278
This dissertation, w ritten by
SIRISH S. MANI
under the direction of h..i.%.. D issertation
Committee, and approved b y all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirem ents for the degree of
D O C TO R OF PH ILO SOPH Y
Dean of Graduate Studies
January 6, 1988
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was made possible through the help and
contributions of many people. I hope to be able to remember to
thank everyone who made this document see the light of day.
I owe a great deal to Janet Fulk. Without her this document
would not have been completed. Janet has been more than just a
mentor and advisor. She has been an invaluable resource during
my entire stay at the Annenberg School. Her contributions to my
intellectual development are many. Whatever I have learnt about
organizational behavior and research methodology is the result of
my work with her. However, my debt to her goes beyond just my
intellectual development. She has been a colleague and, above
all, a friend. Her tremendous faith in me is what got this
document done. I would like to thank Janet for her support and
friendship.
My interest in the topic and the desire to study it was
sparked by the class I took with Patti Riley on "Power and
Politics in the Organization". I would like to thank her for
stimulating my interest in the area. I still find it a
fascinating area and hope to be able to do some more work in it.
I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to all of the
members of my committee: Janet Fulk, Ron Rice, Patti Riley, and
Mary Ann Von Glinow, for their contributions to the
conceptualization of this research. Although the actual number
of contacts with my committee were very few, their contributions
ii
to how this research took shape are invaluable. I would also
like to thank them all for their patience in waiting for this
document to get done. Considering the time it has taken a lot of
I
I people would have given up on it; however, you all did not and I j
j '
> appreciate that. !
I
Doug Shook was instrumental in helping me with moving this
I
document from Pullman, Washington to Los Angeles. Without his 1
help I would have been retyping this document in its entirety
delaying its completion. I would also like to thank Doug Shook i
and Jack Torobin who constantly egged me on to complete this
project. They, wittingly or unwittingly, gave me the moral :
i
support I needed to get this done. !
I would like to dedicate this to my parents who have always
encouraged me and have stood by me. To them I owe everything. !
I
Finally, I would like to state that the opinions and 1
interpretations expressed in this document are solely my own and
the responsibility for any errors is borne only by me. I
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
INTRODUCTION Page 1
LITERATURE REVIEW Page 10
CULTURE Page 11
PERSPECTIVES ON POWER Page 20
Theories of Power Page 22
Drawbacks to Existing Power
Research Page 29
Importance of Integrating the
Power and Influence Literatures Page 36
INFLUENCE TACTICS Page 39
CONCLUSIONS Page 48
METHOD Page 51
SAMPLE Page 51
PROCEDURE Page 52
MEASURES Page 60
Agency and Department Charac
teristics Page 60
Subordinate Power Bases Page 61
Influencing Your Supervisor Page 64
Supervisory Activities Page 67
Supervisory Influence Tactics Page 67
Feelings Toward the Agency Page 67
DATA ANALYSIS Page 67
Limitations Page 73
RESULTS Page 75
Overview of the Agency Page 75
Elements of the Culture Page 77
Summary of the Interviews Page 92
Questionnaire Results Page 95
Relationships between power and
influence tactics Page 97
Results of the LISREL Analysis Page 100
DISCUSSION Page 105
Culture of the Agency Page 106
Power Page 111
Influence Tactics Page 116
Power Bases to Influence Tactics
Relationships Page 118
Implications of the Research Page 124
Suggestions for Further Research Page 126
References Page 130
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Departmental Breakdown Page 139
TABLE 2: Gender Breakdown Page 140
TABLE 3: Means, standard deviations,
and number of cases on
tenure variables Page 140
TABLE 4: Means, standard deviations,
variances and N's on
culture items Page 141
TABLE 5: Means, standard deviations
and variances on power
scales Page 143
TABLE 6: Reliability coefficients
on power scales Page 144
TABLE 7: Means, standard deviations
and variances on influence
scales Page 145
TABLE 8: Reliability coefficients on
influence scales Page 146
TABLE 9: Correlations between power
and influence scales Page 147
TABLE 10: Structural equation coeffi
cients, standard errors and
zetas Page 148
TABLE 11: Model comparisons Page 149
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Literature based model of
power base to influence
tactics relationships Page 150
FIGURE 2: Final model of power base
to influence tactics
relationships Page 151
APPENDIX A Page 152
APPENDIX B Page 153
ABSTRACT
Power and its use in organizations has long been a subject of
interest to researchers. Power has been defined in many ways.
Host of the power research has looked at the existence of various
bases and the antecedents of these bases. Power researchers
have, by and iarge, failed to differentiate between power and its
exercise in their empirical research. In studying it researchers
have used power and influence synonymously. However, in
organizations various power bases exist simultaneously and
individuals are confronted with the choice of which power base to
use and how to exercise it or communicate it. Often this
decision is influenced by the culture of the organization: its
philosophy, values, and norms.
This investigation is based on a study of an advertising
agency in Southern California. The design includes three stages
of data collection: the examination of print material; in-depth,
semi-structured interviews; and a questionnaire. Eight
interviews were conducted with employees in different departments
and at different levels in the organizational hierarchy.
Questionnaires were distributed to 52 employees of which 39
responded. In deriving our conclusions both statistical and
interpretive methods were used.
Among the findings are that employees at this agency seem to
agree quite strongly on the bases of power and influence tactic
that are predominantly used. Referent and expert power are the
vi
predominant bases of power, while rationality is the
predominant influence tactic used. Furthermore, the structural
equations, too, show that rationality is the only influence
tactic that has two paths leading to it. The importance of
rationality in influencing decisions in this agency ties in well
with the values that are important to it. The interviews suggest
that the agency values the contributions of every individual
regardless of their position in the hierarchy so long as they are
able to present themselves logically, thus, explaining the
relatively greater importance of referent and expert power as
power bases and of rationality as an influence tactic.
vii
An Organizational Culture Approach to the Study
of Individual Power and Its Use
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
"The power of a man .... is his present means, to obtain some
future apparent good" (Hobbes, 1950, p. 72). Thomas Hobbes
expressed this view in his most important work, Leviathan. Since
Hobbes's time several writers have explored the concept of power
and many researchers have attempted to study it. The notion of
power has attracted the attention of people and has engaged the
minds of academics and practitioners in a wide range of fields,
including anthropology, psychology, sociology, management, and
political science. However, the concept eludes clear definition.
Even researchers in a given discipline fail to concur on a single
overarching definition within their field. Thus, there exist as
many definitions of power as attempts to study it. The
theoretical approach or paradigm of the researcher has determined
the definition of power.
Power and its possession, has always intrigued the human race.
To quote Dahl (1957, p.201) "The concept of power is as ancient
and ubiquitous as any that social theory can boast." A perusal of
the works of philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, etc.
yields evidence of the interest in the notion of power.
Machiavelli, in his work, The Prince, focused on the actions of a
1
ruler in order to gain power and to keep it. The interest in the
topic has not waned and, today, perhaps is stronger than ever.
Despite the renewed vigor in power research the focus of the
research continues to be interpersonal power. The emphasis of
this research is on the study of the bases of power. Even the
resource dependency theory of power (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978),
which considers organizational level variables, studies them in
terms of their effects on the individual bases of power. Research
has looked at who has power and at what type of power the
individual has.
In the early 1980's the organizational culture approach to the
study of organizations emerged as a very important trend.
Although researchers (e.g. Conrad, 1983; Riley, 1983) have
stressed the importance of studying power from an organizational
culture perspective, there is still a relative lack of empirical
research in the area.
There are a number of power related topics which might be
amenable to the organizational culture approach. This research
focuses on the study of manifestations of power. Presently,
there is a relative lack of research into how power gets
exercised in an organizational context. The few papers that do,
study it in terms of the variables which influence choices of
power behaviors (Gamson, 1968; House, 1984; Instone, et al.,
1983; Kipnis, 1976; Kipnis & Lane, 1962; Kipnis, Schmidt &
Wilkinson, 1980; Porter, et al., 1981). Power behaviors refer to
the ways in which the various power bases get exercised. While
2
this is important in and of itself, there is a need to look
beyond micro explanations of power manifestations and, instead,
approach the subject from a more macro perspective. A macro
perspective will allow us to study the organization as a whole
and its role in determining individual behaviors.
Charles Perrow (1970) supports the earlier view when he
suggests that the preoccupation with interpersonal power has led
us to neglect the significance of subunits within the
organizations. The literature on power in organizations has
focused primarily on interpersonal or intragroup power (Kahn,
1964), or on power which accrues to individuals by virtue of
their positions in the organizational hierarchy (Tannenbaum,
1968) . This research has looked at who has power and why they
have it. The aspect which has been neglected for the most part
is the communication of this power from the powerholder to the
target of the power interaction. This communication is implicit
in the manner in which power gets exercised. One must realize
that having power and using it are not the same. While an
individual may be in a position of power by virtue of his/her
rank in an organization's hierarchy, he/she may not be able to
exercise control over those below him/her merely because of that
position. In fact, sometimes the individual may deliberately
choose not to wield power which accrues through position in the
hierarchy and, instead, prefer to exercise power in more subtle
ways. Research into the ways in which power is exercised is
limited. And it is that gap which this document tries to fill.
3
This research also attempts to fill a gap in the area of
advertising/marketing research. It studies the advertising
agency as an organizational entity. While we do find
considerable amounts of research studying the various functions
performed in an advertising agency, not much attention has been
paid to the agency as an organizational unit. It is very
difficult to find a single study which attempts to look at how
individuals in a service industry working with information as the
primary input work at a creative endeavor. Advertising agencies
have historically been very apprehensive about allowing
researchers into their world and studying their business
(Schudson, 1984). Michael Schudson, in Advertising: The Uneasy
Persuasion, suggests that there is a strong feeling that
advertising agencies are rather secretive about their business
and, perhaps, that might be a reason why not many researchers
have attempted to go into an agency and study patterns of
interaction and the decision making processes therein. One study
conducted by Tony Ellis and John Child (1973) looked at the
placing of stereotypes of managers into perspective. It studied
advertising executives in comparison to those in five other
industries and concluded that the .... "advertising person is a
distinct individual. He/She perceives himself/herself as more of
a risk taker, more willing to question authority, and more prone
to press for change, exhibiting a greater preference for a varied
environment." The research also suggests that the advertising
business is such that it necessitates those working in it to be
4
very different. The conclusion one can draw from the above is
that the advertising person is unique in terms of his/her
characteristics and personality and people in this business might
choose to behave in ways quite different from those in other
jobs. The differences in behaviors may be a function of
individual characteristics or may be due to the organizational
environment they are in, making it important for us to study the
organization as a whole.
Specifically, this research will study two factors that play a
crucial role in decision-making. There are undoubtedly a number
of variables which are important to the process of
decision-making in organizations; however, the two of primary
concern here are power and influence. While quite often these
two terms are used interchangeably, they are different as the
next chapter will clarify. The research is interested, not in who
has power but, in what type of power base each individual in the
organization perceives himself/herself as having, in how they
choose to exercise it (influence), and most importantly, at the
reasons for the choices of influence behaviors. It will
demonstrate that the culture of the organization, i.e. the
philosophy, mission, beliefs, values, norms, etc., determines the
choice of influence tactics. The objective of this study will be
to present an alternative perspective for the study of power and
influence, which this researcher sees as useful in answering
questions left unaddressed by existing research in the area. The
relationship between power and influence has not been extensively
5
researched and one of the first steps is to demonstrate the need
to do so.
The contribution of the current research derives from the
approach being taken to study the topic. The literature in the
areas of power and influence have looked at the effect of
specific, individual variables on power and influence. The
research looks at behavior as rationally determined. Burrell and
Morgan (1979) suggest that "...although organizations are
formally rational, in actual practice they are greatly influenced
by the informal and social aspects of organization." (p.153) They
suggest that one must study organizations as an "adaptive social
structure". The interpretive approach that this research takes
allows us to understand the organization as a whole. We obtain a
clearer picture of what this organization is about, what things
are important to this organization, and the role the organization
plays in the professional lives of its employees. We will show
that the organization's culture plays a role in determining
behaviors in organizations. The implication of this is that it
emphasizes the uniqueness of every organization and highlights
the fact that people make considerable adjustments so as to be an
integral and accepted part of the organization; however, it does
make it difficult for one to generalize across organizations.
Studying the culture helps in understanding how power gets
communicated in the organization.
Having provided a brief introduction to the concepts that we
will be dealing with in the rest of this research and having
6
talked about the key questions in this research, we now specify
the goals of this manuscript. To begin with I would like to
argue theoretically that (A) power and influence ought to be
studied as one and not divorced from each other as has been the
tendency until now and that (B) the relationship between the two
is governed by the culture of the organization and what it (the
culture) deems appropriate behaviors. The research will show
that this approach will (C) allow us to understand the
motivations behind the way power is exercised in organizations.
The second set of goals is empirical. Through the data I
intend to explain (A) the culture of the advertising agency being
studied; (B) the importance of the elements of culture in the
choices of influence strategies; (C) the effect of culture on
perceptions of type of power base which exists in the
organization; and (D) the presence of culture as a mediating
factor in the power to influence tactics relationship.
In order to conduct the research a small, West coast
advertising agency was selected. Data was gathered in three
phases which included analyzing documents, conducting interviews,
and administering a questionnaire. Each stage of the data
collection procedure was conducted after the completion of the
previous phase. The sample size for the final phase of the data
collection procedure was 39, which was a response rate of 75%.
Since the research was testing a conceptual model establishing
links between power bases and influence tactics, LISREL VI was
used as the statistical procedure to demonstrate fit between the
7
model and the data. Statistical analysis was otherwise kept to a
minimum because of the problems of sample size.
Organization of the Manuscript; In presenting the research the
document begins with a review of the literature in the area of
power, power manifestations (influence), and organizational
culture. The literature review comprises the second chapter of
this dissertation. The section begins with a discussion of the
culture literature. It describes the relevance of the culture
approach to the study of organizations. The review then studies
the power literature. This forms the essence of the review.
Various perspectives to the study of power are presented along
with their drawbacks. It is some of these existing drawbacks
that the current research studies. This is followed by a
discussion of the relationship between power and influence which
lays the foundation for the usage of the influence tactics
measurements in the data analysis. The literature review also
shows that the type of power base does not necessarily imply its
use to influence others and demonstrates that individuals choose
to exercise power in various ways regardless of the specific
power base they have.
In order to understand the significance of this approach to
the study of power one must grasp the limitations of the extant
theories of power. Therefore, considerable time is spent talking
about the various theories and approaches to the study of power
and its exercise.
8
The third chapter describes the method used to conduct the
study. The data collection for this research was conducted in
three phases. It has both a qualitative and a quantitative
component to it. The three phases are described in detail. The
section describes the sample, instrumentation and analytical
method.
The fourth chapter presents the results of the study. It
begins with a description of the preliminary results obtained
from the printed literature about the company; then proceeds to
describe the results of the interviews, results of which are
incorporated in the construction of the questionnaire; and
finally, presents the survey results. Essentially, the results
chapter has a description of (A) the culture of the advertising
<
agency, in terms of the elements of that culture; (B) perceptions
of the types of power the individuals perceive themselves as
having; (C) the types of influence tactics they use; (D) the
nature of the relationship between the power bases and the
influence tactics being used.
Finally, the last chapter presents a discussion of the
results. This chapter recalls certain key points from the
theoretical discussion and synthesizes the results obtained at
various stages of the data collection in terms of the theory.
There is a discussion of the implications of this work for the
theoretical literature on which this study is based, for the
study of advertising agencies, and for future research.
9
c
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review begins with a presentation of the
culture literature. It discusses the relevance of the culture
perspective to the study of organizations. The discussion of the
culture literature will highlight key issues in the area of
organizational culture which will be used in this research.
Following the brief review of the literature on organizational
culture, is a presentation of the power literature. This
discussion comprises the essence of this research. Here, we
discuss the various perspectives of power and their drawbacks.
One major drawback to the existing power research is the failure
to differentiate between power and influence. The review goes on
to discuss this issue at greater length. This section concludes
with a brief presentation of the literature in the area of
influence tactics and presents a conceptual model of the
power-influence relationship. The purpose of the review of the
influence literature is to help establish some of the possible
links between the various power bases and influence tactics. The
literature has studied these relationships primarily in terms of
various antecedents of the choice of influence tactics rather
than directly in terms of power bases.
10
CULTURE
The idea of organizational culture is not new (Jelinek,
Smircich, & Hirsch, 1983). Its related concept of organizational
climate has been in use for over two decades. However, what is
new is that the basic assumptions of organizational culture are
now being thought of as alternative explanations to behavior in
organizations (Jelinek, et al., 1983; Schein, 1985; Smircich,
1983) . It demonstrates a shift away from "the commonly accepted
'important things' (such as structure or technology) and toward
the (until now) less-frequently examined elements raised to
importance by the new metaphor (such as shared understandings,
norms, or values)" (Jelinek, et al., 1983). This implies a shift
in perceptions from that of organizational behavior as rational
and objective, to one where behavior is seen to be more
subjectively determined. Organizations are being seen as
entities whose activities are governed not only by the rational
but also by the emotional; thereby allowing us to find
alternative explanations for behaviors left unexplained in
earlier research.
To begin this section of the introduction we need to define
'organizational culture'. Culture is a concept borrowed from
anthropology where there is no consensus on its meaning
(Smircich, 1983). Lack of a single interpretation of culture is
seen in the organizational literature. Culture has been
interpreted as observed behavioral regularities in interpersonal
interactions (Goffman, 1959, 1967; Van Maanen, 1979); norms which
11
evolve in working groups (Homans, 1950); dominant values espoused
by an organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982); philosophy guiding an
organization's policies (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale &Athos, 1981);
rules for integration into an organization (Ritti & Funkhouser,
1982; Schein, 1968, 1978; Van Maanen, 1976, 1979) and feeling or
climate conveyed (Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968) as referenced in Schein
(1985). Schein (1985) suggests that although all the above views
reflect culture or elements thereof, none of them is the essence
of culture. He argues that the term culture should be reserved
for the "deeper level of 'basic assumptions' and 'beliefs' that
are shared by members of an organization, that operate
unconsciously, and that define in a basic 'taken for granted'
fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment"
(p.6). He goes on to define culture as: "a pattern of basic
assumptions invented, discovered, or developed by a given group
as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as
the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems" (p.9). This definition will provide the direction for
this research. Schein (1985), while discussing culture, refers
to various "elements" of the culture of an organization. These
elements include "...the physical layout of an organization's
offices, rules of interaction that are taught to newcomers, basic
values and norms that come to be seen as the organization's
ideology or philosophy, and the underlying conceptual categories
12
and assumptions that enable people to communicate and to
interpret everyday occurrences", (p.13) The physical layout of
an organization is considered by Schein to be the most visible
level of the culture. The philosophy and values are, he
suggests, a reflection of "...someone's original values, their
sense of what ought to be, as distinct from what is" (Schein,
1985, p.15). Some of the values and beliefs then become norms
that guide members of the organization with respect to dealing
with specific situations. The basic assumptions are the implicit
assumptions that "...actually guide behavior, that tell group
members how to perceive, think about, and feel about things",
(p.18) It is these elements of culture, as Schein refers to
them, that serve as the benchmarks for this study.
Culture can be viewed as symbol, language, social drama, and
ritual that highlight organizing (Pettigrew, 1979). It is social
reality. It shapes human interaction and is also the outcome of
the continuous interactions among peoples (Jelinek, et al.,
1983). Gregory (1983) suggests that culture strongly influences
the individual's behaviors. Culture is shared and the
interpretations of the elements of a culture reflect consensus
among the members of the culture (Becker, 1982; Schein, 1983).
Culture is important because it "represents the linkage between
the organizational situation and member's cognitions, feelings,
and behaviors" (Poole, 1984, p.l).
Cultures are highly visible and feelable (Schein, 1983). r
Schein suggests that organizational culture must be better
13
understood because the "phenomenon of culture is real and has
impact” (p.24). This impact is seen at the level of "a total
society, an occupation, an organization, a group within an
organization, or even just a meeting" (p.24). It is important
for one to know the feelings individuals in an organization have
about the culture because it can, in turn, help us comprehend the
motivations underlying individual and organizational performance.
A number of writers on organizational culture also suggest that
the strength of the culture or type of culture can determine the
success of an organization ( Brandt, 1981; Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Wilkins &
Ouchi, 1983).
The visibility and feelability of culture is very real. To
illustrate using an analogy, foreigners in an alien culture can
see differences in values, norms, and patterns of behavior from
those they are used to. The differences are real and not mere
figments of one's imagination. Those individuals who choose to
understand the behaviors of people in these foreign cultures need
to get at the core values of that culture. They need to
understand the basic assumptions under which these people operate
in order to adapt to that culture and feel in harmony with the
environment. Once they understand these basic assumptions they
try to assimilate them and in due course of time come to accept
without question the patterns of behavior which initially were
highly ambiguous. Organizations are like foreign territory to
many. A newcomer to an organization enters an unknown
14
environment. The organization pressures the individual to adapt
to the environment to facilitate integration into the
organization. This adaptation and integration process requires a
congruence between the basic assumptions under which the
organization operates and the individual's own core values. A
lack of congruence leads to conflict between the individual and
the organization. On the other hand, acceptance of the basic
assumptions by the individual implies a willingness to abide by
the rules of behavior in the organization.
The above suggests that the importance of culture to the study
of organizations is undeniable. It does exist and is a strong
influence on the behavior of participants in an organization. It
is a factor in the system in which the organization exists and
must be accounted for when studying organizational issues.
A number of important points derive from the above but those
that are relevant for this research are:
1. Cultures reflect consensus. They demonstrate shared values
and norms which are accepted by the members of the group.
These shared assumptions, in turn, facilitate adaptation to
the environment and integration into the organization.
2. Cultures exist at different levels. Societies,
organizations, organizational subunits, occupational
groups, etc. all have their own cultures which differ from
others. Therefore, the study of cultures is strengthened
by investigating the presence of subcultures as well. It
is the basic assumptions of different cultures or
subcultures which impede the process of integration and
adaptation. (Schein, 1985)
When discussing the concept of organizational culture Deal and
Kennedy use the idea of a 'strong culture'. They define "a
strong culture" as "a system of informal rules that spells out
15
how people are to behave most of the time" (1982, p.15).
Therefore, in a strong culture the code of behavior is specified
beforehand and the members of the culture, by and large, abide by
those codes. This is in contrast to weak cultures where the
members waste a considerable portion of their time in trying to
decide the appropriate course of action. A company with a strong
culture provides structure and standards and a value system in
which to operate, thereby eliminating the uncertainty which
exists at the core of all problems. The essence of all strong
cultures are the basic values which indicate how the organization
intends to conduct its business. These values are then
communicated to the members of the organization by management
which sees that as one of their important functions. And these
values are shared by everyone in the organization (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982). It is these shared, basic values which
distinguish a strong culture organization from a weak one. Peters
and Waterman (1982) state: "the stronger the culture and the more
it was directed toward the marketplace, the less need was there
for policy manuals, organization charts, or detailed procedures
and rules" (p.75). They later go on to say that although some
poorer performing companies may have strong cultures, too, "they
are usually focused on internal politics rather than on the
customer, or they focus on 'the numbers' rather than on the
product and the people who make and sell it" (p.76).
This brings us to the issue of studying power in cultural
terms. Power is a very important aspect of culture (Jelinek et
16
al., 1983). Power, its acquisition and possession, and its
manifestations are all an integral part of the culture of a
society or sub-group. The study of culture from a sociological
or anthropological view suggests that culture influences the
context and nature of power relationships. The culture provides
the rules which dictate the patterns of behavior in organizations
with respect to the interpersonal relationships. It provides a
context in which the power relationships exist and function.
Furthermore, the culture might also dictate the appropriate
strategy for the exercise of power, e.g. a given culture might
emphasize the possession of knowledge as a source of power, while
yet another may have a very formal system where power is given to
an individual based on age. The basic assumptions which govern
the functioning of the culture determine the type of strategy
used.
The organization is a subunit in a "world of ordinary symbols,
rituals, objects, and activities all of which dramatize the
construction of social life" (Wuthnow, et al., 1984, p.77). It
(the organization) facilitates the creation of a social reality
and the symbols and rituals which prevail in the organization's
environment provide a context for the interpretation of social
relationships, including power relationships therein. Galbraith
(1973) suggests that the organization is increasingly becoming a
very potent source of power and is becoming much more important
than the mere personality of the individual or the possession of
property. He says: "So it is in the most recent great movement
17
in the dynamics of power the rise of organization as a source
of power and the concurrent lessening in the comparative roles of
personality and property" (p.131). He emphasizes the importance
of "....social conditioning as an instrument for the enforcement
of power" (p.132).
Based on earlier definitions of culture and the preceding
discussion on the topic one might conclude that organizations are
an integral part of the socialization process. They are distinct
entities with characteristics of their own. While all
organizations are involved in providing either a service or a
product to the market and have profit making as their principal
goal, the strategies adopted to attain the goals and meet their
obligations to society vary. The variations are dependent on
some of the basic assumptions on which the organizational entity
operates and it these basic assumptions which are at the core of
an organization's culture.
The assumptions are established through the past practices of
the organization. Organizations have histories much like
societies and peoples. History establishes the right way to do
things and through a learning process appropriate strategies are
formulated to meet any contingencies. These in due course of
time become the basic assumptions of the entity and provide a
framework within which the organization decides on the strategies
it can use to meet its goals. Therefore, it becomes very useful
to understand the culture of the organization in order to
comprehend the logic behind some of the actions which members
18
take. It facilitates a better understanding of the nature and
structure of the relationships and the way in which interactions
take place.
This leads to the next issue of differences in organizational
cultures. Since organizations operate in different environments
the external influences on the organization vary. Differing
environments imply differences in goals which are one of the
factors influencing the adaptation and survival of the
organization (Schein, 1985). Differing goals would imply
different means and/or strategies to attain those goals.
In addition to the organization as a whole, the subunits can
also be seen as units of analysis. These subunits, in a
multi-function company, are entrusted with different sets of
goals and require different expertise. There is inherent in such
a company the potential for the existence of conflicting
cultures. This sometimes results in the sub-cultures or subunits
seeing their way of accomplishing their goals as the best for the
organization as a whole resulting in culture clashes within the
organization. However, the subunits must function together in
order for the organization to be successful, overcoming
differences in subcultures and sharing commonalities at the level
of the organization's culture instead.
The literature provides evidence showing that an
organizational culture perspective for the study of
organizational behavior can be very useful. It provides us with
the ability to address issues which thus far had not been seen as
19
vital and may help provide alternative explanations for some of
the issues of concern. Power is one such issue. Power research
has been limited in scope and one major weakness is its failure
to look at the motivations which influence the exercise of power
in organizations along with differentiating between power and
influence. Understanding the culture will give us the
opportunity to extract the hidden or unexpressed causes which
influence the type of power behavior exhibited.
We now move on to a presentation of the power literature. It
highlights the major weaknesses of the existing literature in the
area of power and highlights some key issues within power that
need to be studied from a different perspective.
PERSPECTIVES ON POWER
Bacharach and Lawler (1980) refer to the concept of power as a
"primitive concept" implying a term so broad and so lacking in
finite boundaries making agreement on a definition very
difficult. Russell (1938) said that the notion of power would
become a fundamental issue in the social sciences; however,
forty-nine years of research and theorizing have not produced a
single, consensual conceptualization of power. On the other
hand, we find statements such as "power, in short, is a universal
phenomenon in human activities and in all social relationships"
(Bierstedt, 1950, p.30) or "power is a ... concept deeply
embedded in our culture" (Cavanagh, 1984, p.3). Cavanagh goes on
to say that "if it is acknowledged that social power is a concept
20
embedded in our culture its potency as an underlying force within
many interpersonal and organizational relationships must also be
acknowledged" (p.4).
One definition that has had considerable influence on the
study of organizational power is Weber's. According to Weber
(1947, p.152) " 'Power' (Macht) is the probability that one actor
within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out
his own will despite resistance". This definition has influenced
the study of power for the last several decades and has been the
starting point for research into the topic.
Following Weber, academics and researchers immersed themselves
in the debate over the nature and application of power in
different social spheres. This debate included both a conceptual
and an empirical dimension, but because of a lack of consensus on
the meaning of power there have been difficulties in applying the
concept to concrete social circumstances. Bacharach and Lawler
(1980) suggest that researchers have typically proceeded in an
inductive fashion, deriving their formulations of power from its
empirical manifestations, leading to multiple definitions of
power. What follows is a list of some of the definitions of
power in the organizational literature which illustrate the above
stated diversity of views on the concept of power.
Bierstedt (1950): "Power is the latent force.... Power itself
is the prior capacity which makes the application of force
possible." (p.731)
Blau (1964): "Power is the ability of persons as groups to
impose their will on others despite resistance through
deterrence either in the form of withholding regularly
21
supplied rewards or in the form of punishment inasmuch as
the former, as well as the latter, constitutes in effect
negative sanctions." (p.117)
Dahl (1957): "A has power over B to the extent that he can get
B to do something that he would not otherwise do." (p.202)
Kaplan (1964): "Power is the ability of one person or group of
persons to influence the behavior of others, that is, to
change the probabilities that others will respond in
certain ways to specified stimuli." (p.12)
Mechanic (1962): "Power is defined as a force that results in
behavior that would not have occurred if the forces had not
been present." (p.351)
Parsons (1956): "Power we may define as the realistic capacity
of a system-unit to actualize its interests within the
context of system-interaction and in this sense exert
influence on processes in the system." (p.66)
In addition to the variety of definitions of power, power
research has also been influenced by the theoretical approach
taken to study it. It is important to look at these approaches
in order to understand their strengths and weaknesses and see the
contribution of the current research to the study of power.
Theories of Power
In this section we will present the various theories of power.
The theories have contributed to the questions that have been
asked about power and to the type of research conducted on the
topic. A brief overview of these theories will allow us to
comprehend the existing drawbacks to power research.
Bureaucratic Model of Power :
The bureaucratic model sees power as something that is
legitimately given to individuals through a rational process of
22
rule making about codes of conduct in organizations and about
ways to deal with problems encountered in the organization. An
individual's position in the hierarchy reflects the amount of
power the individual has, because the position itself is imbued
with power through the various rules that have been established.
In this perspective, mere knowledge about an individual's
position in the organization implies the amount of power he/she
may have. The bureaucratic model emphasizes reliability of
behavior within the organization and the techniques used to
achieve that. This theory prescribes goals to be achieved and
lays down the rules to achieve them. The rules include the
establishment of the authority structure and expecting members in
the organization to follow that authority structure during
decision-making. The power structures are laid down and expected
to be adhered to. The establishing of rules makes it easy for
the organization to respond to any contingency it might
encounter. And since these rules are established on past
experience they have been subject to the test of time. A result
of this emphasis on rule guided behavior is that the actions of
the participants in the organization are predictable and the
players are seen as reliable or constant in behavior. The
reliability of the individual leads to a reduction in
personalized relationships. The actor only pays attention to
following the rules prescribed to achieve the goals disregarding
the context within which those goals have to be attained as well
as the context in which the rules were initially established.
23
There is also an internalization of the rules of the
organization. This model stresses the importance of rules as a
way to establish control and also to delegate authority. The
existence of these general rules leads to a decrease in the
visibility of power relations which increases the legitimacy of
the supervisory position (Gouldner, 1952).
Dependency Theory :
The notion of dependence gained currency with the work of
Emerson (1962). In this theoretical perspective power was seen
as a result of a dependence relationship. Emerson defined
dependence as: "The dependence of actor A upon actor B is (1)
directly proportional to A's motivational investment in goals
mediated by B, and (2) inversely proportional to the availability
of those goals outside the A-B relationship" (1962, p.32).
Dependence arises because A wants something that B has. To
get that A has to abide by the rules of the game as laid out by
B. To the extent that B has exclusive control over that which A
needs, B has power over A. This approach to the study of power
has been used in definitions of power provided by other
researchers as well, particularly Blau (1964) and Thompson
(1967). Power is measured in this perspective in terms of the
knowledge of B having exclusive control of things which A wants.
The implication of this perspective is that once a particular
power relationship has been established in an organization
because of a dependency relationship, the individual controlling
the relationship can continue to hold that power and choose to
24
exercise it in any way he/she sees fit. That individual may
select not to give any of that resource to the controlled party
and, thereby, maintain his/her position of power till such time
as he/she chooses to give it up. There is an inherent assumption
of a power relationship as being stable in this perspective.
Resource Dependency Theory :
This is an extension of the Dependency Theory. Resource
Dependency Theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) goes outside the
confines of the organization. This theory emphasizes that
organizations are part of a much larger social system. According
to this theory, the organization depends on this system for a
number of its resources which are differentially critical to the
organization. This dependence on the environment leads to
inter-organizational power struggles. According to this theory
those subunits or individuals within the organization that can
provide these differentially critical resources come to have
power within the organization.
While 'dependency theory' looked at power merely in terms of
the relationship between two actors within an organization, the
'resource dependence theory' goes outside the organization. The
resource dependence theory suggests that power relationships
within the organization are externally influenced. The context
within which the organization operates is crucial to what
outcomes are seen inside the organization. Therefore,
organizations are always aware of those organizations that
control the critical resources and the primary function of
25
managerial personnel in organizations is to try and minimize the
negative consequences of such external dependence. Power is
measured in terms of the extent to which an organization is
dependent on its environment for critical resources. In this
perspective, the intraorganizational power goes to that subunit
(individual, group, or department) that is able to handle the
contingencies brought about by this external dependence.
Strategic Contingencies Theory :
This theory (Hickson, et al., 1971) suggests that power
accrues to that individual or unit within an organization that is
best able to cope with the most central, pervasive, and critical
uncertainties. It is this notion of the ability to cope with
uncertainty that differentiates it from the resource dependence
theory. While uncertainty coping capability can be seen as a
resource, it is more accurately described as a critical task
within organizations. According to Hickson, et al. "When
organizations are conceived as interdepartmental systems the
division of labor becomes the ultimate source of
intraorganizational power, and power is explained by variables
that are elements of each subunit's task, its functioning, and
its links with the activities of other subunit's" (1971, p.217).
This theory is an intraorganizational theory of power. Here
the power accrues to a subunit depending on the degree to which
it could cope with uncertainties for other subunits. It also
depends on the extent to which that subunit’s ability to cope
with uncertainties was irreplaceable or non-substitutable. If an
26
alternate subunit were available then the extent of power would
be reduced. Also the degree to which the activities of the
subunit are linked to the system and the extent to which they are
essential to the system affect the extent of power given to it.
Hickson, et al. argued that power was multiplicative function of
uncertainty coping ability, substitutability of that ability, and
the centrality of that subunit. Therefore, the exclusive control
of a resource critical to the organization is of crucial
importance in this theory.
Structural Contingency Theory :
This theory of power (Mintzberg, 1983a) is the most recent
perspective. This perspective takes a very broad approach to the
study of power. It studies power within the context of the
organization as a whole. It breaks up the organization into four
systems: the organizational ideology system, the formal authority
structure system, the technology or expertise system, and the
political system. Mintzberg makes distinctions between these
four systems as systems of power. He argues that power based in
either the organizational ideology system, the formal authority
system, or the expertise system has a strong legitimate base,
while the political system does not provide legitimacy to power.
The reason for the above is that power derived from the first
three are seen as sanctioned means to sanctioned ends. However,
political power is seen as using non-sanctioned means.
The four power systems are enacted through interpersonal power
relationships among members. The way in which each of these
27
modes of power get enacted differs from one another. And these
enactments reflect the ways in which power gets manifested. For
example, the authority system is enacted through the exercise of
legitimate authority; the system of ideology through charismatic
leadership and through control and manipulation of symbols, myth
and ceremony; the system of expertise through the advisory
function of experts; and the political system through the ability
to exploit other systems and to use material incentives,
coercion, information, or situations non-legitimately to pursue
one's own self-interest (House, 1984). Therefore, this
perspective has the advantage of looking at power as occurring in
different systems and in different forms having different
effects. This theory seems to indicate the need to study power
within the context of the system or the environment in which it
gets enacted.
The important thing to bear in mind is that no single
theoretical perspective is adequate for the study of power. This
is particularly true when we are dealing with a primitive concept
such as power which has so many manifestations. That makes the
choosing of any one perspective to explain power a mistake
because no one theory can help understand all of the
manifestations. Perhaps, the one theoretical perspective that
comes closest to helping us understand the various manifestations
of power is the 'structural contingencies theory1 which attempts
to talk about the various ways in which power gets enacted.
28
At this point one must highlight the drawbacks to existing
power research. It is important to be aware and understand the
nature of these drawbacks in order to comprehend the significance
of the current research. This research attempts to provide a new
perspective to the study of power alongwith a definition of
power, adapted from the body of literature in the area of
'influence', which aims at resolving some of the existing
drawbacks in power research.
Drawbacks to Existing Power Research
There are a number of drawbacks to the existing research in
the area of power. This section of the literature review will
highlight some of the major drawbacks, alongwith providing
reasons for their existence as drawbacks.
Power as Stable : The first drawback one sees in the
approaches to studying power is that most research views power as
being possessed by individuals or groups with the relationships
between the parties established and not likely to change. This
view ascribes stability to power. Perhaps, this view of power as
stable derives from the fact that power has generally been
defined in terms of its outcomes rather than in terms of the ways
in which it is communicated to the target of the power
relationship.
There are other factors which also contribute to this view of
power as a relatively stable phenomenon. They are: (a) the
individuals are assumed to have attributes that increase their
29
ability to influence others in a wide variety of organizational
situations; (b) organizational subunits are presumed to have the
capability to control scarce resources; and (c) coalitions are
assumed to be stable because they are based on stable
interdependencies among organizational roles (Pfeffer, 1981).
Clegg (1975) suggests that the stability is imposed upon the
power relationship by the researcher rather than extracted from
observation of the relationships in action. By virtue of looking
at the elements of power as intrinsic qualities of individuals or
organizational units, implied therein is the fact that in a
relationship once the elements of power are in the possession of
a given individual or unit then that power is never lost nor can
be renegotiated. Thus, traditional models artificially impose
stability on organizational power and in so doing obscure
processes through which power relationships are established,
maintained, and modified (Conrad, 1983). Furthermore, they also
suggest that power might be a zero-sum game where
"power...benefits one group at the expense of another" (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979, p.215).
Thus, while there is implicit in all of the above definitions
of power an interaction between the participants, empirical
research has neglected looking explicitly at the interaction
itself. This has led, in turn, to not studying the context
within which the interaction takes place. The more recent
perspectives on power i.e., the strategic contingency theory, the
resource dependence theory and the critical contingency model
30
(Hambrick, 1981; Hickson, et al., 1971; Hinings, et al., 1974;
Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977) have looked at power as the ability to
cope with uncertainty. They fall within the pluralist paradigm.
This paradigm views "organizations and their environments ...
principally as arenas of conflict between individuals and groups
whose activities are orientated towards the achievement of their
own personal goals, values, and interests" (Burrell & Morgan,
1979, p.202). Burrell and Morgan go on to suggest that even in
this perspective power tends to be studied in a very isolated
manner and is "... rarely regarded as defining the nature of the
organization itself" (p.202). The strengths of these
perspectives is their attention to the crucial role of the
environment in the enactment of power relationships addressing
the interactions which take place between the actor and the
environment. But even they only recognize the outcomes of the
power relationships arising out of the interaction with the
environment. They do not look at 'power in process' (Conrad,
1983). They do not look at the way in which power is given to or
attained by individuals or units. They do not recognize the
importance of the way in which the ascriptions of power are
communicated.
It would be useful to look at power as a relationship in which
both parties agree to manipulate the factors which cause problems
while attempting to minimize the costs or losses to both.
Studying power from this perspective emphasizes the need to look
at the various communication processes through which power is
31
exercised as well as the context of the power relationships. In
order to study the way in which power gets communicated it is
imperative for us to understand the difference between the
possession of power and its exercise. Power in this document is
defined as the potential to influence while its exercise is the
process of influence or the communication of the power. It is
this relationship that this research is most interested in
investigating.
Motivations for Exercising Power : A second major drawback
with the traditional approaches is the failure to look at the
motivations for exercising power or the reasons why individuals
choose to exercise power. It is agreed upon that individuals
exercise power because of a certain need to gain control over
others. Yet the cause of that need has not been an issue of
concern. This failure to explore the motives may also result
from the fact that researchers have studied power from the
perspective of its relatively more easily measured behavioral
outcomes rather than from its cognitive manifestations (Conrad,
1983).
While the overt manifestations are relatively easy to see and
to study, the underlying processes which give rise to those
expressions of power are far more difficult to find (Conrad,
1983). These underlying processes say considerably more about
the nature of the relationship between the individuals as well as
between the individual and the environment in which he/she works.
The underlying processes or the "deep structures" as Conrad
32
refers to them are the "power relationships in the organization"
(p.187) that enable us to understand why people come to have
power and how they come to have it. These "deep structures"
facilitate the understanding of the importance given to overt
manifestations of power such as myths, symbols, and rituals.
Additionally, the "deep structures" are "deeply held assumptions
about what are and what are not appropriate actions in a
particular organization" (Conrad, 1983, p.186). It is only when
these "deep structures" fail to accomplish their goals that the
overt manifestations are seen (Conrad, 1983). If one proceeds
from the perspective that power must be overtly measurable, as
much of current research in the area decrees, then the failure to
find overt manifestations would lead us to believe that power
relationships do not exist; however, that may not be true. In
fact, the "deep structures" in the organization may dictate that
power is not to be openly exhibited and instead the power
relationship is arrived at through an implicit understanding of
the basic assumptions of the organizational structure. In an
organization where the above mentioned understanding exists, the
open exhibition of power may in fact be seen as a lack of power.
As Clegg (1979) says: "Perhaps the most potent type of power is
that which is rarely, if ever, exercised" (p.21).
Exercise of Power : The third major drawback discussed here
and of relevance to the current research is that most research in
the area of power has not investigated the issue of the manner in
which power gets exercised, or, in other words the issue of how
33
that power gets communicated. While the literature on
bargaining (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980, 1981; Michener & Schwertf,
1972; Raven & Kruglanski, 1970; Tedeschi & Bonoma, 1972) and
leadership (Argyris, 1962; Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978; Fleishman
sue of choice of tactics, the power literature has failed to do
so. Literature in the area of influence tactics does have some
evidence of differentiating between power and influence and does
discuss the relationships between power bases and influence
tactics; however, the bulk of this evidence is in the form of
conceptualizations and theorizing (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983). There
is limited empirical research demonstrating the type of power
base that might be related to a particular influence tactic.
Furthermore, the limited empirical research which discusses the
relationship between power bases and influence tactics is in the
form of bivariate relationships. There is no evidence of any work
that has treated the relationship in terms of their simultaneous
existence in an organization. Although it acknowledges the
simultaneous existence of various power bases and influence
tactics in an organization, the empirical research has not
studied it as such. In addition, many of the relationships are
hypothesized though not tested. Careful observation of
powerholders in organizations reveals that they use different
power strategies in attempts at exercising their power. However,
much of the research in the area of power fails to address the
issue of choice of power strategies, in addition to not looking
at the reasons underlying the choice of power behaviors. The
34
research that does address the issue implies that having power is
the same as exercising it. As Kipnis and Schmidt (1983) note,
this is a serious weakness of the literature in the area of
power. The traditional views on power and power usage do not
allow for a choice to be made. The tendency to use power,
authority, influence, control, etc. synonymously blurs some of
the significant differences between the having of power and
exercising that power.
Summarizing the preceding exposition the following points can
be made:
1. Power is defined as coercion against the will of others or
the ability to influence the direction of the system's
change process.
2. Power is commonly defined as an interaction, but it is not
studied as such.
3. Power is seen as a commodity and is a 'thing' to be
possessed rather than a relationship.
4. Power is studied as a stable phenomenon, when in fact it is
not.
5. Power is generally studied in terms of its outcomes and,
therefore, many crucial issues are not addressed. One of
the issues not addressed because of the preceding deals
with the motivations for the exercise of power.
6. Yet another problem arising from the above is the failure
to consider the choice of power behavior and the reasons
for the choice.
This research aims at addressing the above drawbacks through
its choice of approach to studying the topic of power. The
drawback addressing the issue of choice of power behavior will be
the focus of attention in this document. In order to do that
35
this research will highlight the need to tie together the bodies
of literature in power and influence.
Importance of Integrating the Power
and Influence Literatures
In studying power, we find that the majority of the research
has used the French and Raven typology developed in 1959. French
and Raven (1959) stated that if one looked at who had power and
why, one would derive a five-fold typology which they termed as
the 'bases of power'. These bases of power were reward power,
coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, and referent
power. These five bases were used in subsequent power research
regardless of the theoretical approach to studying the topic.
Essentially they served as the operationalizations for the type
of power possessed.
Reward power is defined as power whose basis is the ability to
reward. When A has the capacity to provide B with a reward for
doing something, A has reward power. There is a positive valence
attached to this kind of power. The larger the rewards that A
can give the greater the reward power A has over B. The positive
valence of this type of power fosters a favorable relationship
between A and B.
Coercive power is the opposite of reward power in that A has
coercive power over B on the basis of his/her ability to punish
or threaten punishment for non-compliance with A's wishes or
36
requests. The valence being manipulated is negative. And the
relationship between A and B is built on the fear of punishment.
The third base of power is legitimate power. Legitimate power
accrues to an individual by virtue of his/her position in a
hierarchy. It provides an individual, relatively higher on a
hierarchy, the right to exercise the power of that position over
those below. Among the many terms used synonymously with power,
the one that comes closest to legitimate power is authority. When
Weber (1947) talks of authority he implies legitimate power.
Expert power is the fourth base of power discussed"by French
and Raven. This type of power accrues to an individual based on
his/her knowledge or expertise within a 'given area1. The key
words here are 'given area'. They are important because they
differentiate expert power from information power. When we refer
to expert power we are concerned with task-related knowledge.
Therefore, A can be said to have expert power when he/she has
knowledge related to a specific task that B does not have and
which can help B perform the task better. And while A might have
expert power, he/she may not have any other base of power.
Referent power has its basis in the identification B has with
A. When B has the desire to be like A or feels the need to
identify with A, A has referent power over B. A then has the
ability to get B to do what he/she wants because of B's desire to
be like A. This power exists if B behaves, believes, and
perceives as A does, even if B is unaware of it.
37
A sixth base of power added to the French and Raven typology
is information power. This base is similar to expert power
except that it is non-task related. For example, if A has
information that might be useful to B in B's adjustment into an
organization or group, A can be said to have information power.
Most power research has tended to equate the possession of
these power bases with their exercise. But House (1984) in
talking about the exercise of power says "First, we would expect
the mode of power exercised to be contingent on the bases of
power possessed by the power agent" implying that "powerholders
will be constrained to employ power strategies consistent with
the kinds of power they possess." Thus, if one has legitimate
power one will always exercise authority. However, House also
goes on to suggest that this is likely to occur only in
circumstances where the powerholder has only one power base at
his/her disposal. In organizations, any one individual may
possess more than one power base. Under these circumstances the
type of power to be used by the powerholder is left open to the
powerholder's choice. The question then is what determines the
choice. It is the issue of choice of power behavior and the
reason underlying the choice which are the key concern of this
research.
One would like to reiterate the use of the terms in this
document at the present moment. Power is used solely in the
sense of an individual's potential to influence others to act in
a certain way. We do not make references here to the
38
influencee's actions being against his/her will. That is a moot
point here because power is merely the potential and does not
imply forcing action on the part of the influencee. And if A is
not forcing B to act, then the issue of B's actions being against
his/her will is irrelevant. One might argue that the mere
potential to influence can force B to act against his/her wishes.
While that may be true, it is not of concern to us here, because
we are interested here in how an actor A exercises the power
he/she possesses over others and the reasons for the choices of
power behavior regardless of the final outcomes. Influence,
here, is used in the sense of the exercise of that power. In
other words, it is power in use. It is because of the
differentiation that is made here that one must look at the
literature in the area of influence tactics to understand the
nature of the links between power and influence.
INFLUENCE TACTICS
A survey of the literature on influence tactics in the
organizational setting indicates primary interest in how
subordinates are influenced while attempting to enhance
productivity and morale (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). The
research predominantly investigates the exercise of power by
supervisors over subordinates and is covered in the leadership
literature. This research studies power and influence in only one
direction. However, power does not reside only in the hands of
those in supervisory positions in organizations. Even
39
subordinates can have certain bases of power e.g. expert power.
Similarly, influence flows not just from supervisors to those
under them, but may also flow in the opposite direction or among
people at the same level in an organizational hierarchy. This is
particularly true in today's environment where task
specialization exists. In such an environment, power is
distributed among more people at varying levels in an
organization and is not merely a function of position in a
hierarchy or of physical control over resources. To elaborate,
because of higher levels of specialization in technology and in
training it may not be too wrong to assume that power based on
expertise is no longer the domain of just a few people at the top
of an organization's hierarchy. One might even suggest that
those individuals low in the organizational hierarchy may possess
considerable expert power and yet their choices of how to
exercise that power may be limited by who they are and whom they
are trying to influence.
Exercise of power or influence means communicating the
possession of one's power base and, like all communications
phenomena, is constrained by the environment in which the actors
perform. Existing classifications of power tactics implicitly
fail to acknowledge the effects of the environment on behaviors.
Furthermore, the research indicates "that people do not exercise
influence in ways predicted by rational classification schemes"
(Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980, p.440). Quite often people
tend to use many more and different influence tactics than the
40
traditional classification schemes might indicate (Kipnis &
Schmidt, 1983; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). This
suggests that one ought to look at the relationship between power
and influence tactics in greater depth.
Much of the previous research in influence tactics has been
mostly laboratory studies (Mowday, 1978). There is limited
research available that has investigated the use of influence
tactics conducted in an organizational setting. Furthermore the
research relating power and influence is mostly conceptual. Very
little research is empirical in nature.
Based on the literature one can establish certain
relationships between the various bases of power and various
influence tactics. In order to set up the links this research
will use the French and Raven typology of power bases as the
sources of power for the individuals in the organization.
Referent Power: This power exists when actor B uses actor A
as a frame-of-reference against which to evaluate himself/herself
(Raven, 1974). When A has referent power over B, then B wishes
to be like A so that he/she is accepted by A. This desire for
acceptance causes the need for identification and the use of
ingratiatory tactics on the part of B to influence A. The nature
of this relationship is inverse in that those with less referent
power tend to use more ingratiatory tactics (Kipnis, Schmidt, &
Wilkinson, 1980; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981; Tedeschi,
Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1973). Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson (1980)
in a study of 754 respondents belonging to a managerial
41
population taking part-time graduate business courses found that
those who frequently sought personal assistance from the target
persons used ingratiatory tactics.
Legitimate Power: is that power that one has because of one's
position in an organizational hierarchy. Legitimate power is
given to one because of that position and thereby provides
authority to that individual. There is a tendency for those with
legitimate power to be more likely to use directive tactics to
influence others and use assertiveness (Deutsch & Krauss, 1960;
Kipnis, 1976; Raven, 1974; Tedeschi, Lindskold, Horai, & Gahagan,
1969). Kipnis (1976) suggests that the possession of formal
authority can result in others mistrusting the powerholder. This,
in turn, leads the powerholder to use directive tactics in
influencing others. Tedeschi, et al. (1969) in a study of 200
students in an introductory psychology class discovered that when
people were in equal power positions behavior tended to be more
cooperative. On the other hand differences in power positions
caused non-cooperative behavior to manifest itself.
Legitimate power can also be exercised through the use of
rational tactics (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1973). Rational
tactics include the use of reason and logic in order to influence
others. Position in the hierarchy of an organization very often
provides those individuals with the opportunity to use rational
tactics. High status people generally possess greater expertise
and, therefore, are also likely to use rational tactics. They
are perceived by those in lower positions to be knowledgeable and
42
that in turn enables the holder of legitimate power to exercise
that power without resorting to authoritative methods. The
nature of the relationship between the holder of legitimate power
and those under him/her could be both positive and negative. This
depends on a number of variables. For example, if A has
legitimate power over B, but B does not acknowledge that power,
then A might use less persuasion and be more assertive; on the
other hand, if B sees A’s legitimate power as deriving from A's
knowledge and abilities, then A would be able to use more
persuasion and be less assertive. When an individual has low
legitimate power, he/she is likely to choose from between a
number of influence methods: ingratiation (Kipnis & Schmidt,
1983; Raven, 1974); upward appeal (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma,
1973); and coalitions (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983).
Coercive Power: This power refers to the awarding of
punishments for non-compliance. Coercive power is frequently
exercised through assertiveness (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983) or
sanctions and blocking (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980).
Deutsch and Krauss (1960), and Tedeschi, Lindskold, Horai, and
Gahagan (1969) have shown that individuals who possess coercive
power tend to use influence tactics which are more directive and
assertive because they believe that non-coercive means will be
resisted or viewed with greater suspicion and distrust than
coercive tactics.
Reward Power: is seen to generate a favorable response from
the target person. It leads to a more positive attitude or
43
relation between the powerholder and the target. Reward power is
often exercised through ingratiation (Tedeschi, Schlenker, &
Bonoma, 1973) or through the use of compliance gaining tactics
through the promise of a reward (Raven, 1974).
Expert Power: is exercised most frequently through the use of
reason. This type of power accrues to an individual based on
superior knowledge or expertise. This knowledge is then used to
rationally present one's position and convince the others about
the correctness of your position. When you have expert power
others see you as credible and the powerholder uses information
to exercise that credibility. The emphasis is on the content of
the communication (Raven, 1974). Often when an actor has expert
power his/her advice is not only sought, but the opinions "are
readily accepted as representing the true nature of reality"
(Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1973). Those perceived as more
expert are seen to use more persuasion.
However, Tedeschi, et al. also suggest that "the possession of
special information may also prompt one to participate in an
open, manipulatory, exchange relationship". They suggest that
expertise provides prestige and "a high prestige source of
influence should prefer those modes of influence that rely
directly on the control of resources. Thus, the modes of
influence preferred by those of high prestige should include
threats, promises, and reinforcement control rather than modes
that stress information control and persuasion", (p.101) Perhaps,
44
one is likely to find that those with expert power and low
legitimate power might use other power strategies.
Information Power: Information power has not been discussed in
the literature in terms of the associated influence tactics.
However, it might not be wrong to suggest that the influence
tactics used by those with information power may not be very
dissimilar from those used by individuals with expert power.
Information and expert power differ with respect to the content
of the information. While expert power refers to task related
information, information power refers to non-task related
information. This type of information can be used in a rational
manner as well as in a manipulatory manner. A might choose to
present to B information which might be useful to B in making the
adjustment into an organization; however, at the same time, A can
withhold information or use it to make B's position in an
organization tenuous or use it as a tool to force B to conform
with his/her (A's) wishes.
The preceding discussion describing the ways in which power
can be exercised help build a literature based model showing
possible relationships between power bases and influence tactics
(Figure 1). This model will be summarized towards the end of
this chapter. The limited empirical evidence available indicates
that a powerholder has the ability to exercise his/her power in a
variety of ways. When one has multiple power bases choices of
influence tactics are many and varied. But even with only one
power base at one's disposal, the individual powerholder may be
45
able to choose from among various strategies depending on other
constraints. House (1984) suggests that there are a number of
variables which affect the choice of a power strategy or
influence tactic. They include, in addition to the power base
possessed, the target's willingness to comply (Goodstadt &
Kipnis, 1970; House, 1984; Kipnis, 1976; Kipnis & Cosentino,
1969; Michener & Burt, 1974; Rothbart, 1968; Tedeschi, et al.,
1972); possession of coercive means (House, 1984); powerholder's
characteristics (Gamson, 1968; House, 1984; Instone, et al.,
1983; Kipnis & Cosentino, 1969; Kipnis & Lane, 1962; Michener &
Burt, 1975; Mowday, 1979); target's behavior (Goodstadt & Hjelle,
1973; Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970; House, 1984; Kipnis, 1976; Kipnis
& Cosentino, 1969; Kipnis 6c Lane, 1962; Michener, Fleishman,
Elliot, 6c Skolnick, 1976; Toch, 1970); relative amount of
influence (Kipnis, Schmidt, 6c Wilkinson, 1980; Mowday, 1979;
Porter, Allen, 6c Angle, 1981); expectations for future
interactions (House, 1984; Kipnis, 1976); the social setting
(Goodstadt 6c Kipnis, 1970; Hemphill, 1950; House, 1984; Kipnis,
Silverman, 6c Copeland, 1973); stress (Blake & Mouton, 1961;
Fodor, 1976, 1978; Mulder, Ritsema van Eck, & de Jong, 1970;
Mulder 6c Stemerding, 1963; Sherif et al., 1960); and norms
(House, 1984; Kipnis, 1976; Libert 6c Poulos, 1971; Staub, 1971;
Swingle, 1970a, b; Tedeschi et al., 1972) as cited in House
(1984) .
While all the variables mentioned above have been studied by a
number of researchers, two of them, 'social setting' and 'norms'
46
have not been subject to the same level of scrutiny. These two
variables are of particular interest here for the above reason as
well as because the few studies that have looked at norms and
social settings within organizations have taken a functional,
micro approach to studying their effects. The terms have been
defined rather narrowly. When the social setting variable is
discussed it is studied merely in terms of the distance between
the powerholder and the target. However, social setting goes
beyond that. It provides the context and the environment for the
relationship. The context, in turn, goes beyond merely the
existence of a distance between the powerholder and the target,
Context provides the direction for the relationship and explains
the nature of the relationship.
This research is also interested in the issue of norms as
affecting the choice of influence tactics. Previous research has
given this factor little importance. It is seen either as a
source of guidance or of constraint on behavior. Norms, however,
can play a more crucial role in organizations. They provide
employees with the key to what is right and wrong, what is
acceptable and what is not. They serve as prescriptions rather
than simple guidelines. The next section on organizational
culture will discuss this issue at greater length. The
organizational culture approach is being suggested as an
alternative approach to the study of power and influence in order
to answer some of the questions raised by the drawbacks of
previous approaches.
47
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the literature review we are in a position to set up
a literature based model representing the relationships between
the power bases discussed and various influence tactics. The
literature based model is represented in Figure 1. According to
the model the following relationships should be seen to exist if
theory holds true:
Referent Power: Referent power has only one path originating
from it. People with low referent power tend to use ingratiation
as a method of influencing those they look up to. The nature of
the relationship is negative indicating that the lower the
referent power the greater the likelihood of use of ingratiation
as an influence tactic.
Legitimate Power: Those with legitimate power have a wide
range of influence tactics to choose from. They could use
ingratiation, assertiveness, rationality, or upward appeal as
methods of influencing others. The relationships between
legitimate power and ingratiation and upward appeal as influence
tactics are negative. Therefore, the lower the position of an
individual in the organizational hierarchy the greater the
likelihood that he/she will use ingratiation or upward appeal as
ways to influence others. Legitimate power is positively related
to assertiveness and rationality as influence tactics.
Coercive Power: When one has coercive power the tendency is
for that individual to use assertiveness as an influence tactic.
The relationship is positive in nature. Thus, the greater the
48
amount of coercive power in one's possession the greater the
likelihood of that individual being assertive in his/her exercise
of that power.
Expert Power: Expert power has two paths originating from it.
One is a positive relationship to exchange as an influence tactic
and the other is also a positive relationship to rationality as a
way to exercise that power. Since expert power derives from
one's possession of task related knowledge, an individual who has
expert power is in a position to use that knowledge in exchange
for retaining his/her status in the relationship. The direction
of the relationship is positive. The link between expert power
and rationality as an influence tactic is also positive in
direction.
Reward Power: This type of power which derives from one's
ability to grant rewards manifests itself most often through
ingratiation or through assertiveness. The relationship between
reward power and ingratiation can be both positive and negative,
while that with assertiveness is positive in direction.
Information Power: This base of power due to its similarity to
expert power described earlier, is likely to get exercised in
ways similar to those that are manifestations of expert power,
i.e. exchange and rationality. The direction of the
relationships are positive.
This is the representation of the relationships suggested by
theory and as seen in the literature review to this document. The
actual model which will be tested for fit of the data to the
49
model varies marginally due to reasons which will be discussed
subsequently.
50
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
This chapter describes the method used in conducting the
study. It begins with a description of the sample. This will be
followed by a presentation of the steps in the data collection
process. Next will be a discussion on the measures used in the
questionnaire. Finally, the method of analysis used in the study
will be presented.
SAMPLE: The agency used for the study was a small agency with
52 employees at the time of the data collection, located on the
West coast. Although this location had 62 people on its rolls,
only 52 were full-time employees. The agency is highly respected
in the community which is evidenced by the numerous awards they
have won for their creativity. They initially were servicing
only industrial accounts, but had recently made the move into
doing advertising for consumer goods.
The final stage of the data collection which was the only
stage including all of the employees drew responses from 39 of
the 52 employees (75% response rate). The departmental breakdown
of the sample (Table 1) was fairly even across the five key
departments: account services (7), creative (6), media (4),
accounting (7), and administrative (6). The sample consisted of
27 women (71.7% of those who responded) and 8 men (29.3%) with 4
of the respondents declining to identify their gender (Table 2).
& 51
The average tenure in the company was 22.07 months with the
average tenure at the current job being 13.38 months (Table 3).
The agency itself is a fairly young advertising agency. It was
set up in 1975 and now has two offices, both in west coast
cities. The relatively young age of the agency is reflected in
the average length of tenure of the employees.
PROCEDURE: There were three steps in the data collection
procedure. This was necessary because of the nature of the topic
being studied. The study of an organization's culture requires a
detailed understanding of its philosophy, values, beliefs, norms,
etc. A knowledge of the above helps one to understand the
motivations behind the behaviors of the people in the
organization. In order to gain the type of insight into a
culture which would help us understand the nature of the
interactions, Faulkner (1982) suggests a triad mode of data
gathering. He states: "Multiples in data collection - a triad
of, for instance, observation, interviewing, and archives or
records - stimulate (one hopes) complexity and subtlety of
insight." (p.81) In discussing the stages of the triad method of
data collection, Faulkner suggests that each step has its
distinct advantages. The interview step "strengthens the actor
viewpoint". Interviews he suggests "induce an appreciation of
the people being studied while permitting a relatively wide range
of issues and questions to emerge, especially during the
formative stages of a project." (p.81) Observations meanwhile
provide the researcher with the opportunity to actually see the
52
interactions. The interviews and observation bring the
researcher closer to the observed behavior and the self-reported
behavior. The third leg provides the researcher with the
opportunity to quantify. While the "...quantitative data permit
the researcher to represent that something is happening
(distributions, correlations, and so on), but they do not explain
the meaning of that happening to those experiencing it." (p.85)
Qualitative data allows one to gain that understanding and
enables us to explain the behaviors. The triad method allows the
researcher to bring in his interpretations of behavior. This can
be important because people within an organization or a culture
are so much a part of it that they are not aware of the reasons
for their behaviors. Their actions become automatic reactions to
stimuli. An outside researcher brings with himself/herself the
objectivity of someone looking in from the outside. And yet, in
order to fully understand the culture he/she needs to immerse
himself/herself in the culture and see it from the inside. This
necessitates a lengthy data collection procedure. This study is
a variation on the triad method. It includes the document and
literature step as well as the interviewing leg of the data
collection process. It does not, however, include the
participant observation. The participant observation had to be
eliminated due to time constraints.
The data gathering process began with a meeting with the
President of the agency who was also the contact person. The
purpose of the research and its nature was described to him. He
53
was informed that this research was for academic purposes,
assuring him of the confidentiality of the study and informing
him that we would be willing to provide him with a copy of the
final research document if he desired. His help was then
requested in providing us with any printed material that the
agency might have on its operations. This was the first step in
gathering the data. This literature enabled us to learn about the
agency. The material given to us informed us about the history
of the agency. Information about its beginnings, its corporate
philosophy as put in print, its capabilities, the various
services the agency provided, the clients they worked for, the
key personnel alongwith brief descriptions about them and their
achievements, and an organization chart were obtained . On the
initial visits to the agency this researcher was given a tour of
the agency and introduced to some of the employees. The
information gathered through the first part of the data
collection was then used for the second stage of data gathering.
The second stage was conducting personal interviews with some
of the employees. The choice of interviewees was left to the
President. The President was informed that we would like a cross
section of employees and that a sample size of about 10 would be
necessary. The choice of people was left to him because we
needed people who could give us a fair amount of time and this
researcher felt that he (the President) would be in the best
position to estimate the availability of people who could give
atleast 45 minutes of their time.
54
The interviews themselves were semi-structured. An outline of
the interview schedule is provided in Appendix A. Two interviews
a day were conducted for four days for a total of eight
interviews. The interviews ranged from a minimum of 45 minutes to
2 hours and 15 minutes. The researcher began the interviews by
introducing himself and telling the interviewees about the nature
and purpose of the study. After identifying himself as a student
from the Annenberg School of Communications who was conducting a
research project for doctoral dissertation purposes, he described
the research as a study of the culture of the agency and how it
affects interactions between the employees in decision-making
processes. He informed them about the complete confidentiality
of the study and assured them that no names would be used. He
also told them that he would have a copy of the final paper
available to them if they needed. Finally, he asked them
permission to tape the interviews to guarantee accuracy in
reporting their statements. He gave them the option to ask him
to turn off the tape machine any time during the course of the
interview if they did not want him to tape certain portions of
the interview. The interviewer felt that all of these assurances
were necessary just to make them feel comfortable and to elicit
from them a free and frank dialogue. All of the interviewees
allowed the researcher to tape the conversations in their
entirety.
Once having assured them of the confidentiality the
interviewer began by asking them questions about their tenure
55
with the agency and at the job. The interviewer also asked them
about the nature of their job and their responsibilities. The
purpose of these questions was to allow the researcher to get to
know the interviewee as well as to make them feel more at ease.
The interview then shifted gears and began addressing questions
that bore direct relevance to the research concerns. The
interviewer asked them if they could give an idea of the
philosophy of the agency when they joined the firm and whether
they saw any changes during their tenure. From the question on
the philosophy the interview moved to the issue of the values and
norms that were important to the agency. When questions arose
about the terms being used or if the responses did not seem to be
appropriate to the question being asked, the researcher posed the
same question in a different form either at the same time or
later in the interview.
While talking about the values and norms, the interviewer
addressed the issues of the types of skills required, the reward
systems, the promotion policies, the problem solving mechanisms,
the authority system, the division of labor, performance
appraisal criteria, extent of interactions outside the work
place, and the granting of recognition. These questions helped
lay out specific details about the way the organization ran its
day-to-day operations. These same issues were addressed at both
the agency level and the departmental level.
We then asked the interviewees if they saw any changes taking
place. This was relevant because the agency was shifting from an
56
industrial goods agency to one servicing consumer goods accounts.
The researcher also asked them to describe whether the changes
they saw were in the philosophy, the values or the norms and
their feelings on the reasons for the changes.
The interviews then addressed the question of norms of
behavior in the agency and in each department. It is necessary
to make the distinction between the agency and the department,
particularly with respect to norms of behavior, because the
creative departments in advertising agencies have the reputation
of being very different and unique. The interviewer asked the
respondents about the explicitness of the norms, the source of
information about these norms, and their feelings about the
uniqueness of these norms to their agency and their departments.
Although the interviews did address various issues at both the
agency level and the departmental level no analysis was done at
the departmental level due to the very small number of
respondents.
The next issue addressed the question of group
decision-making. The interviewer asked them how they normally
expressed themselves in decision-making and how they chose to get
their points-of-view across and accepted. They were also asked
them if that style was unique to them.
The final question addressed their feelings on the level of
consensus that might exist in the agency with respect to the
points they had made. The interview concluded by asking them if
they had any questions which they would like to have answered.
57
All, but two, did have questions about the study, what sort of
information we hoped to gather, and how we planned to use it.
The interviewees were from various levels in the organization
and from different departments. The interviewees were very
forthcoming with their answers. The assurances about the
confidentiality of the interviews seemed to help because the
respondents did not hesitate to express their opinions. The
responses from the interviews were very useful because they were
then used in developing the questionnaire which was the only
stage of the data collection which required the participation of
the entire staff of the agency.
The questionnaires were distributed to the employees on the
20th. of November, 1985. The researcher chose this time because
the questionnaire was very long and we decided it might be
advantageous to give the respondents time to fill them out. The
initial date for the return of the questionnaires was November
30. On December 2nd. only 28 of the 52 questionnaires
distributed were returned. A reminder was sent through the
contact at the agency. This resulted in an additional 11 being
returned by December 23, 1985.
The questionnaire (Appendix B) consisted of nine sections with
the last one asking for optional demographic information. Part A
of the questionnaire asked for departmental affiliation. The
questions were "Which department do you currently work in? " and
"How long have you worked in your current department? " Part B
consisted of questions about the agency and departmental
58
characteristics. The items in this section were derived from the
interviews. They were questions about the culture and
respondents were asked to answer on a 5-point Strongly Disagree
to Strongly Agree scale. The items were asked at both the agency
level and the departmental level. Part C consisted of items
about the subordinate's bases of power. A recently developed
multiple item power scale was employed and will be discussed in
the next section. Part D was about the influence tactics
subordinates used to exercise their power. Once again the
measurement instrument used will be discussed subsequently. Parts
E and F addressed the same issues as Parts C and D but from the
supervisor's perspective. Part G addresses the issue of
organizational commitment. This section was included because the
agency was interested in finding out about the level of
commitment to the agency. Once again a multiple item scale was
used and will be discussed. Part H consists of questions of
interest to the agency and addresses the issues of the extent to
which the employees are clear about the expectations of the
agency, the nature of the conflicts and disputes in the agency as
being positive or negative, and about the sources of information
about the agency.
The questionnaire, too, was identified as confidential
university research. The respondents were provided with
envelopes which they were asked to seal once they had responded
to the questionnaire and then leave it in a drop box located at
the agency.
59
MEASURES: In discussing the measures I will describe at length
only those which are of primary interest to this research. The
other measures will be discussed briefly.
Agency and Department Characteristics: This section consisted
of questions aimed at finding out about the elements of the
culture of the agency. Once the printed material was analyzed
and the interviews were completed, the tapes from the interviews
were transcribed to extract specific items which were seen to
refer to elements of the culture. For example, the interviews
suggested that one of the key ingredients of the philosophy of
the agency was to do unique advertising. That item was then used
in the questionnaire and employees were asked to respond to the
following question "Doing unique advertising is very important
in.... (a) the agency (b) your department." They were asked to
respond on a 5-point scale with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 5
being "strongly agree". This entire section consisted of 35
questions addressing the elements of the culture (Appendix B).
All items asked for strongly disagree -strongly agree responses.
The reason for developing this section in this way was to find
out the level of agreement between the employees on the aspects
of the culture as well as to obtain information about the
possible existence of subcultures. The level of agreement about
the elements of a culture is said to be a key element because it
informs us whether the elements of the culture are shared (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1985). Deal and Kennedy even go on to
suggest that the greater the degree of sharing of the elements of
60
a culture by its members, the stronger the culture. Table 4
presents the means, standard deviations, and the variances on the
culture items. The sharing of the elements of a culture are seen
to contribute to the development of strong cultures (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1985).
Subordinate Power Bases: This section intended to find out the
bases of power of subordinates. A recently developed multiple
item scale (Hinkin, 1986) to measure bases of power was used.
Hinkin's (1986) scale measured the five bases of power based on
the French and Raven (1959) typology and included the following
bases of power: reward, coercive, referent, legitimate, and
expert. Items for informational power were developed
specifically for this study and were tested with the current
sample. A modification in the stems of the items were made for
purposes of this study which aimed at obtaining self-perceptions
of power bases rather than at finding out subordinate perceptions
of supervisory power bases. While the original scale asked
subordinates to respond on a 5-point strongly disagree
strongly agree scale to questions like: My supervisor
can...."make me feel like I have duties to perform", this study
changed the stem of the questions to read I can .... "make my
supervisor feel like he/she has tasks to perform" (Appendix A
-Part C). I will now discuss each power base individually. Table
5 shows the means, standard deviations, and the variances on the
power scales, while Table 6 shows the reliabilities of the
scales.
61
Reward Power: This base consists of the following items: (i) I
can influence my supervisor's getting a pay raise; (ii) I can
provide my supervisor with special benefits; and (iii) I can
influence my supervisor's getting a promotion. Hinkin in a
separate test of the scale found this three item scale to have an
alpha coefficient of reliability of 0.78. In this study the
scale was reduced to a two-item scale for final analysis. While
the three item scale had a reliability coefficient of 0.65,
dropping the third item from the scale resulted in an alpha of
0.74.
Coercive Power: The following items comprise this scale: (i) I
can make my supervisor's work difficult for him/her; (ii) I can
make things unpleasant here for my supervisor; and (iii) I can
make being at work distasteful for my supervisor. This
three-item scale has an alpha coefficient of 0.73 for this sample
and of 0.88 in the original testing of the scale.
Referent Power: This too is a three item scale. The items are:
(i) I can make my supervisor feel valued; (ii) I can make my
supervisor feel like I approve of him/her; and (iii) I can make
my supervisor feel personally accepted. This scale has a
reliability coefficient of 0.85 for the current sample, while the
original sample had an alpha of 0.81.
Legitimate Power: (i) I can make my supervisor feel that s/he
has commitments to meet; (ii) I can make my supervisor recognize
that s/he has tasks to accomplish; and (iii) I can give my
supervisor the feeling that s/he has responsibilities to fulfil
62
constitute the three item scale to measure legitimate power.
Hinkin obtained an alpha of 0.84 while testing the scale, while
this sample obtained a reliability of 0.73.
Expert Power: This power base was originally developed as a
three item scale with a reliability of 0.81. The three item
scale in this study had an alpha coefficient of 0.57 and was,
therefore, reduced to a two item scale in this study to allow
subsequent use in analysis. The items are: (i) I can share with
my supervisor my considerable experience and/or training and (ii)
I can provide my supervisor with job-related advice. These two
items yielded a scale with an alpha of 0.64. The item dropped
from the original scale was I can provide my supervisor with
needed technical knowledge.
Information Power: This scale was developed for this study.
The items on this scale were developed based on the definition of
information power discussed in the previous chapter. Since
information power revolves around non-task related information,
the questions focused on the potential to use non-task
information to exercise one's power. The items used were: (i) I
can convince my supervisor about the correctness of my point of
view; (ii) I can provide my supervisor with non-task related
information; (iii) I can inform my supervisor about what is
correct behavior in the organization; (iv) I can make it
difficult for my supervisor to integrate into the organization;
and (v) I can inform my supervisor as to how to deal with other
people in the organization. This five item scale had a
63
reliability of 0.53 and was dropped from use in any subsequent
analysis.
Influencing Your Supervisor: This section of the questionnaire
seeks information about how the subordinate goes about changing
his/her supervisor’s mind so that he/she agrees with the
subordinate. In order to measure subordinate influence tactics a
multiple item scale developed by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson
(1980) was used. This scale was initially tested on a sample of
managerial population and who were doing graduate work in
business on a part-time basis. The sample consisted of 754
individuals of which 225 described how they influenced their
bosses, 285 described how they influenced their coworkers, and
244 described how they influenced their subordinates.
The original scale contained eight multiple item scales to
measure influence tactics used. While the items remained the
same, the stems were changed depending upon the direction of
influence being assessed. The current study did not use one of
the scales because this scale had a total alpha coefficient of
reliability of 0.53. Means, standard deviations, and variances
of the influence scales are in Table 7 and the scale
reliabilities are in Table 8. The scales used in this study are:
Assertiveness: This scale consists of the following items: (i)
Set a time deadline for him or her to do what I asked; (ii)
Became a nuisance (keep bugging him/her until he/she did what I
wanted); (iii) Repeatedly reminded him or her of what I wanted;
(iv) Expressed my anger verbally; (v) Had a showdown in which I
64
confronted him or her face to face; (vi) Pointed out that the
rules required that he or she comply. This scale had an alpha of
0.65 where the target was the superior in the original study. For
the current sample the scale had a reliability of 0.64.
Ingratiation: This had a total alpha of 0.70 and 0.71 when the
target being influenced was the superior in the original study.
The scale with the following items: (i) made him/her feel
important ("only you have the brains, talent to do this"); (ii)
acted very humbly to him or her while making my request; (iii)
acted in a friendly manner prior to asking for what I wanted;
(iv) made him or her feel good about me before making my request;
(v) sympathized with him/her about the added problems that my
request has caused; and (vi) waited until he or she appeared in a
receptive mood before asking, had an alpha of 0.70 in this sample
for upward influence.
Rationality: (i) Wrote a detailed plan that justified my
ideas; (ii) presented him or her with information in support of
my point of view; (iii) explained the reasons for my request; and
(iv) used logic to convince him or her, are the four items in
this scale. Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) obtained a
total reliability of 0.71 and an alpha of 0,70 where the target
of influence was the superior. This study dropped the first item
and had an alpha of 0.74.
Exchange: This is a five item scale. The items are: (i)
offered an exchange (e.g., if you do this for me, I will do
something for you); (ii) reminded him or her of past favors that
65
I did for them; (iii) offered to make a personal sacrifice if he
or she would do what I wanted (e.g., work late, work harder, do
his/her share of the work, etc.); (iv) did personal favors for
him or her; and (v) offered to help if he/she would do what I
wanted. In the original study this scale had a total alpha of
0.73 and an alpha of 0.76 for influence in the upward direction.
This study obtained an alpha of 0.72 for subordinates influencing
their supervisors.
Upward Appeal: Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) obtained
a reliability coefficient of 0.68 for upward appeal as an
influence tactic used by subordinates and a total reliability of
0.67. This study had an alpha of 0.63 for this four item scale.
The four items are: (i) made a formal appeal to higher levels to
back up my request; (ii) obtained the informal support of
higher-ups; (iii) filed a report about the other person with
higher-ups (e.g., my superior); and (iv) sent him or her to my
superior.
Coalitions: This last scale in this section of the
questionnaire is a two item scale. Kipnis, Schmidt, and
Wilkinson (1980) obtained a reliability coefficient of 0.81 where
the subordinates were attempting to influence their supervisors
and a total alpha of 0.75. However, the current study found an
alpha of only 0.43 and hence, this scale was dropped from
subsequent analysis. The two items are: (i) obtained the support
of coworkers to back up my request and (ii) obtained the support
of my subordinates to back up my request.
66
Supervisory Activities: This section attempts to find out the
power bases of the supervisors. The scales in this section are I
the same as those in the section which asks about subordinate
bases of power; however, the number of items in the scales vary.
Since subsequent analysis in this research does not look at the
issue of the relationship between supervisory bases of power and
supervisory influence tactics, I shall not delve into the
specifics of the scales here.
Supervisory Influence Tactics: This section, too, like the
earlier one contains scales which were not used subsequently.
They attempt to find out the tactics supervisors use to influence
those under themselves. However, I shall not discuss them in
this document.
Feelings Toward the Agency: This set of items measures
organizational commitment using Porter's organizational
commitment scale. This scale was incorporated in the study
because the agency was interested in finding out about the level
of commitment the employees had toward the agency. It is not an
integral part of this research.
DATA ANALYSIS: The data analysis included looking at the
documents/printed material provided by the agency, studying the
interviews, as well as performing some statistical analysis on
the questionnaire data.
The print material was used primarily to provide a starting
point for the study. It served as the framework for the
interview. The material looked at included a company brochure
67
which gave an overview of the agency. It gave a brief history of
the agency and talked about the capabilities of the agency and
the various services it provided. There was also a client list
and brief bios of the key personnel in the agency. The other
printed material looked at was the organization chart. The
decision on what material to look at was determined in large
measure by what was available. Being a small agency there was
relatively little material put together by the agency about
itself. The only other available material was in trade magazines
which mentioned some of the recognition that the agency had
received for its creative endeavors.
The above sources provided us with some idea of the
characteristics of the agency. It informed us about the things
which were important to the agency. The literature provided us
with the outline for the interviews which followed.
The interviews themselves as described earlier were
semi-structured. The purpose of the interviews was to facilitate
the construction of the questionnaire and to help explain the
statistical relationships. The analysis of the interview data
looked for specific items that were mentioned by the interviewees
on specific topics. Those items were then incorporated into the
questionnaires which were distributed to all the employees in the
agency.
Once the data was gathered through the various stages, it was
analyzed. The nature of this study minimized the need for any
extensive statistical analysis. While statistical analysis was
68
necessary to show the possible existence of certain paths between
the power bases and influence tactics, the explanation of those
paths themselves was done using an interpretive method. The
literature does not suggest any hypotheses to be tested other
than the possible existence of some power to influence
relationships. Zero-order correlations between the power base
scales and influence tactics scales were studied to see if they
were consistent with expectations (Table 9). The literature
suggests that certain types of power might be related to certain
influence tactics and these studies (cited in other parts of this
document) were primarily correlational in nature. Hence, the
initial investigation of the zero-order correlations was
considered potentially informative and as providing a starting
point for investigating the relationships.
The other phase was to look at the culture items. Since one
of the objectives was to look for consensus on the issue of
culture, it was decided to look at the mean scores and the
variation around the mean as an indicator of consensus. The
logic used was that the lower the variation around the mean the
greater the degree of consensus. There were no a priori
hypotheses suggesting the grouping of specific culture items into
factors. This meant that any factor analysis, if conducted,
would be exploratory. Hence, no factor analysis was done.
The more important use of the culture items was in using them
as interpretations for the relationships between the power bases
and the influence tactics used. Here once the structural
69
relationships were established, the culture items were used as
possible explanations for the existence of specific
relationships. Although one purpose of this study was to
discover the culture of the agency and it would have been to the
research's advantage to be able to factor out the philosophy, the
values, the norms, etc., inability to do so does not hamper our
understanding of the culture of the organization. The
philosophy, the values, the norms, etc. are seen to consist of
various elements and these elements are useful in explaining the
relationships between the power bases and influence tactics. The
various items which constitute the philosophy, the values, and
the norms stand on their own without having to be lumped into
factors. Their usefulness in explaining the nature of the
relationships between the power bases and influence tactics is
not hurt by the inability to factor the items.
The only major statistical analysis done was to test existence
of causal paths between the bases of power and the type of
influence tactic used. The LISREL VI computer program (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1986) was used to test the conceptual model and to
determine the parameters of the structural equations in the
model.
LISREL VI is a statistical package developed to analyze
causal models. It has the ability to handle models with
reciprocal causation which traditional path analysis does not do.
In fact, traditional path analysis assumes unidirectionality. In
addition, LISREL VI also has the advantage of being able to build
70
a model while considering multiple variables simultaneously. The
structural equation model estimates the coefficients in a set of
linear structural equations.
In this research I have attempted to estimate the unknown
coefficients of the structural equations. The general hypothesis
examined via the technique is that the sample covariance matrix S
corresponds to the model based estimate of the population
covariance matrix. If the model and the data are similar the two
estimates will converge. The strength of the model is determined
by a chi-square statistic which is a goodness-of-fit index. The
larger the chi-square statistic the poorer the fit between the
data and the model. Therefore, a non-significant chi-square is
desirable.
In addition to the chi-square statistic, Bentler and Bonnett
(1980) suggest that a statistic which measures the difference
between the chi-squares for the null model and for the proposed
model be computed. This test is the difference between the
chi-squares with degrees of freedom equal to the difference of
degrees of freedom of the two models (Fink & Monge, 1986). If
the chi-square difference is statistically significant, the null
hypothesis of no relationships is rejected and the proposed model
is taken to be significantly different from the null model.
A third test was also done to confirm the acceptability of the
fit of the data to the model. This was to divide the obtained
chi-square by the degrees of freedom. If the number obtained was
71
less than or equal to 5, the fit is considered acceptable
(Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers, 1977).
In order to build the model of relationships LISREL VI
computes modification indices. These modification indices inform
us about paths to be added which represent the data better. The
research in the area has not studied the existence of structural
relationships between power and influence. Therefore, this
research was more a model building study rather than a model
testing one. The modification indices in LISREL allow us to
perform this model building task and, hence, their use. These
paths are added iteratively where only one path is added at each
step on the basis of its theoretical relevance and/or the
magnitude of the modification index. Modification indices over
2.00 were considered numerically suitable for inclusion. When
paths with modification indices smaller than 2.00 were added the
corresponding t-values were non-significant. They were then
considered for logical appropriateness before being added to the
model. Once the relevant paths were added, the t-values of all
the variables in the model were examined and all non-significant
paths were deleted. Finally, the modification indices from this
last step were once again examined to verify that no paths
deleted in the previous step should be added back on to the
model.
Having described the method of analysis being used, the next
chapter goes on to describe the results of the various phases of
the data collection process. However, prior to describing the
72
results some key limitations of the research will be presented in
the following section.
Limitations
The study has some major limitations. The first is the
selection of only one agency to study. This is a major weakness
because it inhibits generalizations. However, one purpose of
this study was to show how culture might serve to explain the
choices of influence tactics when multiple power bases exist
simultaneously in an organizational environment. This has not
been demonstrated empirically before. At this juncture
generalizations are less important than looking at the issue in
the manner suggested and that can be done by studying even just
one agency.
The second is the very small sample size for the questionnaire
part of the study. This limitation restricts the ability to
conduct any statistical analysis with an acceptable level of
reliability and that would yield significant results. In
addition, the small numbers also prevent us from looking at the
subcultures which we know to exist in organizations and which was
stated as being important to look at when discussing the
literature. However, since the nature of this research is aimed
at giving us a reason for taking a new approach to the study of a
relatively unresearched topic area, the importance of sample size
at this juncture is reduced. Undoubtedly, any subsequent research
must recognize the need to work with a larger sample.
73
A third limitation is the small number of respondents during
the interview phase of the data collection. Only eight
interviews were conducted. One would have liked to interview a
larger number of people. However, the purpose of the interviews
was to learn about some of the key elements of the agency's
culture which one was able to do even with the small number of
interviewees. Furthermore, by interviewing employees from all of
the departments and at various levels in the organization's
hierarchy, one was able to obtain a diversity of views and
perceptions.
The fourth limitation of the study is the inability to use
participant observation as one of the stages in the data
collection process. Participant observation can be very useful
for the study of cultures. It allows the researcher to observe
the participants in action in a natural environment and the
information can be combined with self-perceptions to develop a
coherent picture of the culture of the organization. If we had
been able to incorporate participant observation, we might have
been better able to evaluate the social desirability aspect of
the self-perceptions with a greater degree of objectivity.
74
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the study. It begins
with a description of the printed literature on the firm. This
is followed by a description of each interview individually.
Last, is a presentation of the results of the statistical
analysis. The data for the analysis was obtained through the
questionnaires.
Overview of the Agency
The agency opened its doors for business in 1975 in Southern
California. It began with the belief that business-to-business
advertising needed consumer style "big idea" thinking. Today the
agency has offices both in Southern California and Northern
California. While the Northern California office has 17
employees, the Southern California location has 63 people. In
addition, the agency was bought out by a large national
advertising agency in the early 1980's (exact dates have been
omitted to prevent the possibility of identifying the agency).
Despite having a parent organization, the agency continues to
operate under its original name and its day to day operations are
not influenced by the parent firm; in fact the agency continues
to enj oy operating autonomy. The reasons for the merger were to
take advantage of the financial resources, the credit reputation,
and the nationwide service and recognition that it would bring.
75
The agency clearly states a strong service commitment. They
describe themselves on paper as an experienced and reputable
ConsumerTech agency. In the past they concentrated primarily on
high-tech accounts and on business-to-business advertising. There
has been a recent change to consumer accounts. They are a
full-service advertising agency and can provide the entire range
of services that might be expected of such an agency. Their
in-house capabilities include marketing/advertising planning and
management, all aspects of media, creative concept development
and execution, and research of all forms. As an agency they have
won numerous awards for their creative work.
On entering the agency one sees a rather colorful personality
emerging, with an atmosphere of relative informality.
Interactions are on a first name basis. While the senior
management has individual offices, doors to these offices were
almost always kept open, giving one the feeling of easy
accessibility. One of the visits to the agency was on the day
before Halloween and a few of the employees were at work in
costumes.
In dealing with their clients the agency believes in setting
its clients apart from their competitors and they do this through
what they call Advertising Equity. They create this advertising
equity that projects the personality of the advertiser or his/her
product and this idea is distinctive and memorable enough to
become a part of the company's equity which is both valuable and
permanent. The agency emphasizes a high degree of
76
professionalism when dealing with clients regardless of the
impression one might get observing the atmosphere within the
agency.
Elements of the Culture
The elements of the culture are obtained through the
interviews that were conducted. The interview results of each of
the eight interviews are presented in this section. The
interviews help one to understand various aspects of the agency's
philosophy, its character, its values, and its norms which are
seen as important to the agency. While the print material quite
often can be seen as mere propaganda, the interviews inform about
the issues of importance to the agency and its employees. The
interviews enable one to discover whether employees in the agency
are aware of the elements of the agency's culture as well a s ^ \
whether they see the agency working adhering to its philosophy
and following its values and norms. The eight interviews helped
develop the questionnaire which intends to find out the level of
agreement that exists within the agency on the issues being
addressed. In addition, the questionnaire also includes
questions which are of interest to the agency executives. In
presenting the results one begins with the summaries of the
interviews. The interviews are presented on an interviewee
basis, because of the relatively small number of interviews and
because the interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner
yielding data that at times appears to be tangential to specific
77
issues being addressed and yet very important for the explanation
of the structural equation model. After the individual
presentation of the interview results, they have been summarized
into some key topic areas to facilitate a quick overview of
common responses to specific topics.
Interview No. 1: The first interview is with a senior level,
male executive from the account services department and is 75
minutes in duration. According to this respondent the philosophy
of the agency is "...to do good advertising, profitably, and have
fun doing it." A very important element of this agency's beliefs
is that the client must be happy. The client must believe that
he/she is getting the kind of work he/she believes he/she should
receive and at a cost that is appropriate for the kind of work
delivered. This is important to the agency because the client's
satisfaction means a long-standing agency-client relationship.
The idea of good advertising is difficult to define. According
to the agency doing good advertising is doing breakthrough
advertising. This can be accomplished by creating advertisements
that make one nervous, that are unique for the product category,
and that are capable of breaking through the clutter in
advertising. (Advertising clutter is a phrase used to define the
plethora of advertising messages for the same or different
product categories which crowd the media making it difficult to
distinguish one advertising message from another). However, this
can create a certain amount of stress and tension between the
account services people and those in the creative departments.
78
The reason for this tension is because of client pressures to be
pedestrian and safe, which quite often goes contrary to the
agency's strategy of doing breakthrough advertising.
The philosophy of the agency dictates the values of the agency
and the norms which the agency holds as important. The agency
places a great deal of emphasis on good strategic skills. It
looks for people who are capable of analyzing data, interpreting
it, and presenting the results. This is one of the key
requisites of employees in the agency; however, experience is
considered an invaluable asset. Employees must have the ability
to think and adapt to situations. Interpersonal skills are very
important because of the people orientation of the advertising
business. Individuals must, not only be able but, be willing to
deal with a high levels of stress. Stress once again is a very
integral part of the business and because of the cyclical nature
of the business, these periods of stress fluctuate in intensity.
A personality trait that the agency looks for is a lack of
introversion, although that does not imply that the individual
must be extroverted. Due to the constant interaction among
V
people in this business someone who is introverted would find it N
very difficult to survive in the business.
The agency's reward system includes year-end bonuses which are
not related to performance. In addition, the agency recognizes
performance at 'all-hands meetings'. These meetings are sessions
where all the employees get together and are informed about any
individual achievements or accomplishments by any of the
79
employees. It is seen as similar to a pat-on-the-back. This
ritual was more regularly conducted when the agency was smaller,
but the frequency has decreased with an increase in the number of
employees. This interviewee felt that there is a certain amount
of cynicism among the employees about the all-hands meetings and
that monetary rewards were seen as more important.
The authority structure in the agency, according to this
interviewee, is not formal. The system is quite informal and
there is an open-door policy for the most part. One can talk to
whomsoever one wants; however, this can be a problem because it
makes it difficult to accomplish tasks. This system exists in
the agency because of a desire to maintain a familial structure
to the agency, but this is increasingly problematic because of
the growing size of the agency. This interviewee felt that
perhaps it might be advantageous to have a formal authority
structure or complaint mechanism.
As far as promotion policies were concerned the agency is not
big enough to allow career paths to develop. This necessitates
the creation of other ways to keep employees happy.
On the issue of norms at the agency interviewee number 1 was
of the opinion that managers were often fighting other people's
battles despite talk suggesting that this was not the norm. There
are rather informal dress codes in the agency. The only criteria
is that they dress properly for the position. An important norm
of behavior is that regardless of the level of disagreement
within the agency, only one voice must be presented to the
80
client. Another important norm is that communication should be
free flowing in the agency and, in fact, no fears exist in the
agency about restriction of information flow or communication
flow.
When asked about the extent of change in the agency's
philosophy, values and norms over the tenure of the interviewee
at the agency the interviewee responded by saying that while the
philosophy had changed 'very little' to 'not at all1, the values
and norms had changed at the departmental level to 'a moderate
extent'.
Interview No. 2: The second interviewee, a middle-management,
female executive from the administrative services department,
defines the philosophy of the agency in the same terms as the
previous interviewee. The philosophy according to this
individual is "...to do quality advertising, and have fun doing
it, while making money at the same time." According to the
interviewee the philosophy had not changed at all during the
course of tenure of the individual at the agency.
In order to meet the philosophy the agency has some definite
expectations of its employees. One of the key expectations is
respect between the employees. This respect is expected to be
given by all employees to every other person in the agency
regardless of position in the organizational hierarchy. There
also exists a degree of caring by upper management for those in
subordinate positions. The agency expects everybody to be
treated fairly. The agency expects input from employees. This
81
input is requested and is used in decision making by the
superiors. Open communication is emphasized.
In hiring people the agency pays a lot of attention to
personality traits. Technical skills are required, but more
important are specific personality characteristics. A positive
attitude is a key ingredient of all hires in the agency.
Interpersonal skills are important. People with a sense of
humor, who are easy going, flexible, and non-confrontational are
the norm in this agency. The agency feels this is important
because of the people nature of the business and its high stress
levels.
Performance is important to success in the agency. Rewards
are given based on performance, which is measured in terms of the
quality and the quantity of work. In addition, the attitudes and
the interactions of the individuals are also taken into account
while measuring performance. Performance reviews are open-ended
and merit reviews are done annually. The rewards themselves take
the form of salary increases and bonuses. This interviewee, too,
stressed the all-hands meetings and talked about the importance
the agency places on public recognition of an individual's
performance. Informal pats on the backs are also a form of reward
and recognition at the agency.
The agency expects its employees to be able to solve problems
on their own. The problem-solving mechanism is not formal. The
agency has a philosophy of individuals dealing with their
problems directly with each other. It is only if they are unable
82
to sort out their differences between themselves is it acceptable
to go to their supervisors and ask them to intercede on their
behalf. Access to senior management is open and free according
to this interviewee. While a formal authority or reporting
structure exists, in practice, the structure is highly informal.
Norms in the agency include respect, a positive attitude, a
willingness to do excellent work on time, honesty, fairness in
interpersonal interactions, and an ability to get along with
coworkers. These norms are made clear to people being hired by
some supervisors, although in certain departments individuals
picked up the norms informally.
Interview No. 3: This interviewee is a senior level executive
in the finance department. The definition of the philosophy of
the agency given by her is the same as the first interviewee. The
interviewee emphasized the importance of people at the agency.
She suggested that the agency considers every individual to be
important and tries hard to make people feel a very integral part
of the agency. In order to do that, quite often, the agency
bases hiring decisions on the potential to be good employees
rather than on mere accumulation of experience. The agency
prefers the idea of people growing with the agency. This is
reflected in the fact that they first look for people within the
agency to fill up vacancies before searching outside the agency.
Employees are evaluated on an annual basis and performance is
measured on the basis of their fulfilling their job requirements.
Rewards include year-end bonuses. The agency also has activities
83
for the whole agency such as an annual party and the all-hands
meetings which serve as events or rituals for recognition of
employee contributions to the agency. However, this interviewee
feels that the agency has grown less close in the last few years
due to its growth.
Norms of behavior in this agency are very informal.
Informality in interpersonal interactions is encouraged. The
agency expects employees to get along with everyone.
Participation in social activities is expected. The employees
have to solve their problems among themselves, which encourages
cooperation among the employees. When asked how the interviewee
tried to contribute to and influence decision-making, she said
the strategy was to go very well prepared with facts and relevant
arguments. This individual felt that the agency places so much
emphasis on one's ability to rationalize and justify one's
statements that it was very important to be well-prepared with
all the relevant information.
The interviewee felt that there has been little change to the
philosophy of the agency, despite the fact that there is now a
great deal of emphasis on obtaining new accounts. This new
emphasis, according to the interviewee, has been brought about by
the environment. The interviewee was referring to the change in
the direction of the agency from a high-tech agency to a consumer
goods agency. Because of declining revenues from high-tech
accounts, the agency has had to look to consumer goods accounts
to bolster its profitability.
84
Interview No. 4: "To have fun, make money, and do good
work...” was the philosophy according to interviewee no. 4, a
senior executive in the creative services department, "...and
this philosophy was made very explicit". The agency also
believes very strongly in the philosophy of maintaining an open
atmosphere according to her.
In order to adhere to the philosophy the agency looks for
certain types of people. While job skills are important, the
agency also looks for a certain personality type. People with a
sense of humor, who are energetic, and with an outgoing
personality are normally hired. This is reflected in "...the
somewhat raucous nature of the agency". The agency strongly
fostered a family atmosphere.
Performance is very important in the agency. Employees are
evaluated both as individuals and on performance. How hard they
push for an idea, how well they work with others, how interested
they are in their coworker's work are all criteria for
evaluation. Rewards for performance come through bonuses,
recognition, public thanks, and sometimes being given a day off.
According to this interviewee, the agency also has a good policy
of promoting from within before going outside to fill vacancies.
Agency wide meetings are held to pass news about agency to all
employees in an attempt at spreading the attitude of arrogance
about the agency. She also talked about the agency's tenth
anniversary party, which according to her had the atmosphere of a
"...religious revival."
85
On the issue of norms, this respondent suggested that no code
of conduct is the code of conduct. The respondent did state that
her department norms are "slightly crazier" than those of other
departments. There is also greater dress freedom within that
department.
On the issue of influencing others the interviewee felt that
discussions were the norm, suggesting that one should not go on
the offensive, but instead say "I need you". It also helps to go
armed with a great deal of information into meetings.
The respondent felt that the agency had changed slightly with
respect to its philosophy. This according to her is a function
of both changes in personalities running the agency and in the
environment. The sentiment that the agency has less of a family
atmosphere today than it had a few years ago is shared by this
interviewee.
Interview No. 5: This interviewee stated that the philosophy
of the agency which had not changed during the tenure is to
"...have a good time, do as good work as possible, and get along
with others". According to this respondent, a female, middle
management employee in production, the agency is well recognized
in the community for its good work. She felt that the emphasis
put on good work as the agency defines it has not diminished
since being taken over although the organization structure has
undergone some changes. The major change in the agency,
according to her, is a loss of the family atmosphere. She
suggested that the employees in the agency were a lot closer a
86
few years prior to the study. The interviewee feels that the
loss of closeness was inevitable considering the extent of
growth.
In the hiring practices the agency is very interested in
finding people with excellent people skills, according to the
respondent. Considerable emphasis is placed on the personality of
the individuals being hired. They have to be assertive and yet
diplomatic, who could get what they need. Orientation toward
detail is very important to the agency.
As far as performance is concerned, the interviewee suggested
that, the key consideration is that job descriptions be met. Both
qualitative and quantitative criteria are used in evaluating the
employees. One aspect which this respondent emphasized was that
the agency is quite sympathetic and open to reasons for
performance failures, which this respondent found lacking in
previous places of employment. There is also a willingness to
make accomodations. The agency rewards performance by giving
recognition to individuals, give bonuses, and is open in personal
expressions of appreciation for a job well-done. The all-hands
meeting is mentioned by this interviewee as a channel for the
granting of recognition. Promotion policies at the agency are
informal and if someone is seen to be doing a good job he/she is
considered.
The authority system, although formal on paper, is only
occasionally so in practice. Problem solving mechanisms vary
across departments and quite often depend on the nature of the
87
problem. However, a frequently used method to resolve problems
is to talk it over face-to-face with the party concerned.
Sometimes one also sees problems being taken care of through
yelling.
Norms of behavior at the agency are rather informal and also
vary across departments. One norm which is common to all
departments is the importance placed on being able to get along
with everybody. This is very important to the agency.
Interview No. 6: In talking about the philosophy of the agency
this interviewee mentioned the family orientation of the agency.
She suggested that the agency emphasizes strongly the need to
work together and have fun while doing so. This interviewee is
from the traffic department and is a junior level employee.
In hiring people, she suggested that, the agency looks for
people who are bright and intelligent and willing to work. The
agency is willing to train those individuals it hires and,
therefore, the emphasis placed on previous experience is not very
high.
When asked about performance and rewards the she indicated
that the performance appraisals in this agency are formal and
merit reviews are done. Rewards are given through recognition
for performance. The agency also shows its appreciation of its
employees by taking care of you and showing concern for the
overall welfare of the employees.
88
The authority system at the agency, according to her, is
relatively informal. One can talk to anyone one wants to so long
as one did not overstep one's bounds.
Norms at the agency are "... to get along with the other
employees, not blow up, have fun at the job, and treat others
with respect".
Interview No. 7: In describing the philosophy of the agency
this interviewee reiterated the words of the others. This
interviewee is a middle management executive in the media
department. In addition reiterating the words of the others with
regards the philosophy, she suggested that, the agency also has
as a part of its philosophy the need to maintain an open
atmosphere. The agency recognized the importance of open
channels of communication.
The agency strives to remain profitable, to ensure that people
enjoy their work so that they would work harder, make the agency
well known, do good work, aggressively develop new business, and
diversify the types of accounts and clients. The changing
environment made it necessary for the agency to diversify.
In hiring people, according to this interviewee, the agency
looks for skills related to the job. Experience is required for
outside hires. In addition to job skills personality is a key
consideration. People have to demonstrate openness and an ability
to learn.
Performance is measured in this agency by how well individuals
do their work and the amount of pride they take in their work.
89
There are both quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate
employees. Rewards are given in the forms of raises, incentives,
and compliments about their work. This interviewee felt that the
non-monetary rewards seemed to work better than monetary ones in
keeping employees happy. On the issue of job openings, positions
are first filled from within.
The authority structure at the agency is rather loose. Problem
solving is left to the individuals and parties concerned and they
are expected to resolve issues among themselves.
On the issue of norms, the interviewee suggested that, no
norms exist. The agency is a friendly place to work in, although
it is less family-like than a few years earlier. Management is
free in giving thanks and acknowledging the contributions of
others and this sort of behavior is expected of everyone.
Interview No. 8: The philosophy according to this last
interviewee is once again "... do great advertising, have fun,
and make money doing it". The interviewee, a senior executive,
suggested that professionally the agency's desire was to do great
work, but in advertising great work is difficult to do because
the work you do is to please others, not yourselves. This
according to the interviewee "... leads to pressures and can take
away from having fun". Despite the pressures the agency has
worked very hard at making money but not at the expense of the
other two aspects of the philosophy.
As the agency is growing one sees some changes, but there is a
strong attempt at keeping the place free of politics. The
90
interviewee suggests that although this might seem idealistic,
the importance of the above is seen as very real. The
interviewee felt that when the work is really good, consensus
develops reducing the likelihood of political game-playing. Good
work is, therefore, valued tremendously.
In hiring people the emphasis is on finding smart people above
all else because they learn quickly. The agency also looks for
nice people measured in terms of cordiality and pleasantness.
People who believe in mutual respect are valued. Technical
skills are far less important and although the agency looks for
experience, potential is more crucial in hiring decisions.
According to this interviewee performance is measured both
qualitatively and quantitatively. Performance appraisals are
conducted. Recognition for performance comes informally. People
are free with praise although too much of it can be negative.
Accolades are shared. This is important because the nature of the
job is one where the success or failure of a venture is not due
to any one single individual but to a team of people working on
an account. While formal methods of recognition such as employee
of the month exist, these are seen as divisive. Monetary rewards
and raises come as recognition beyond what they expect. The
importance of the all-hands meetings was emphasized by this
interviewee.
Norms of behavior include showing an interest in the welfare
of the employees. The agency puts emphasis on people caring for
one another, showing consideration for those you work with. The
91
agency also expects its employees 'to try', because someone who
is willing to try is a very valuable person. The norms of
behavior also expect the maintaining of a familial atmosphere.
That is, however, rather difficult to maintain because of the
growth in the agency. With an increase in size it is difficult
to maintain short lines of relationships and the maintaining of a
caring environment is becoming tough. While the interviewee felt
uncomfortable about this happening, he felt that this was
necessary. The agency wanted recognition by getting for itself
"...a wider stage and audience for its product and service". This
necessitated a shift to consumer accounts because they are bigger
accounts and because they provide a better opportunity for
recognition. There is also a financial side to it.
Thus far this section has presented each of the interviews.
While the individual interview results allow one to see the way
in which different employees at the agency feel about the
organization, they address a diversity of issues. What follows
is a summary of the interviews arranged on the basis of specific
topic areas viz. philosophy, values and norms which form the
culture of the agency.
Summary of the Interviews
Philosophy: The results of the interviews indicate the
existence of consensus on the issue of the philosophy of the
agency. Every interviewee stated the philosophy of the agency in
much the same words, i.e. "...to do good advertising, profitably
92
and have fun doing it". The respondents indicated that the
agency tries to act in a manner that would best facilitate
adherence to the philosophy. They felt the hiring practices, the
promotional policies, the reward systems, the authority system,
and the norms of behavior were all governed by the philosophy.
While the language used in describing the philosophy of the
agency showed a high degree of similarity, one found a wider
variety of values and norms enumerated by the interviewees.
Values and Norms: A value the agency holds dearly is to make
the employees feel an integral part of the agency. The agency
also tries hard to do a certain level of advertising, which has a
sense of arrogance about it. The employees enjoying their work
is an important aspect of the agency and the agency tries to
ensure the right environment for its employees to maximize their
enj oyment.
An aspect of the agency that comes through as very important
to it is the type of people it chooses to employ. People who
have excellent interpersonal skills are seen as vital to the
maintenance of a happy work environment. When the agency hires
people it looks for these interpersonal skills. Yet another key
aspect of the agency's values is the importance it places on
analytic and strategic skills. The agency looks for people who
can logically argue and defend their positions, and for
individuals who are good at looking at information and able to
analyze data. The significance of the type of people this agency
employed is stressed by all of the interviewees.
93
With the agency placing a great deal of importance on the type
of people it hires, it is important for the firm to also pay
attention to keeping them happy. The reward system the agency
employs is quite varied in its scope. In addition to the
monetary rewards such as bonuses, the agency places emphasis on
personal recognition of good work. Employees are recognized for
their contributions both in private and in public. The
'all-hands meetings', mentioned by all of the interviewees is an
important public forum for employee recognition. These other
ways to keep people happy are seen as important because the
agency is relatively small to allow the development of career
paths through promotions.
Another aspect of the norms and values which is mentioned by
all of the interviewees is the relative informality of the agency
vis-a-vis its authority structure. All of the interviewees
suggest that this agency believes in employees solving their
disputes on their own and amongst themselves. While a chain of
command exists on paper, it is hardly ever employed. There is,
however, some degree of disagreement insofar as one of the
interviewees suggests that although informality is implied
overtly, supervisors are expected to solve the problems of
others.
These are some of the key aspects of the culture which were
common threads through all of the interviews and which will have
a great deal of relevance in the next chapter of this document.
Therefore, they have been selected and emphasized at this
94
juncture. There are a number of other points which are made in
the interviews which have not been summarized here to avoid
unnecessary repetition. Those items are included in the
questionnaire along with the key items stated earlier and account
for the 35 items which constitute Part B of the questionnaire.
These items are included in the questionnaire to find the level
of consensus which exists in the agency on the issue of the
culture of the firm. The results of the analysis done on these
items and others follows.
Questionnaire Results
This section reports the results of the statistical analysis
conducted on the items which refer to the culture of the agency.
As previously mentioned the items are derived from the
interviews. Due to the small sample size it was deemed not
feasible to perform any factor analysis to reduce the 35 items to
a group of factors representing the philosophy, values, and norms
of the agency. The items are treated independently and the
degree of consensus will be reported based on the mean and the
variance around the mean as an indicator of consensus (TABLE 4).
The items which constitute the philosophy of the agency, i.e.
(1) unique advertising is very important; (2) making money is
very important; and (3) enjoying the work is very important,
yielded means of 4.85, 4.64, and 4.64 respectively with variances
of 0.23, 0.29, and 0.34 respectively, indicating very low
divergence around the mean. The degree of consensus which was
95
seen in the interviews regarding the philosophy was very evident
when the entire agency was sampled. Other items which showed a
low variance around the mean or relatively high levels of
consensus include (1) Interpersonal skills are required (mean
4.23, variance 0.92); (2) Clear thinking is required (mean 4.46,
variance 0.47); (3) Sense of humor required (mean 4.28, variance
0.89); (4) Positive attitudes required (mean 4.21, variance
0.64); (5) Good work recognized (mean 4.28, variance 0.58); (6)
Job openings first made known to people within agency (mean 4.54,
variance 0.31); (7) Performance important for promotion (mean
4.23, variance 0.97); (8) Preference given to outsiders when
filling positions (mean 2.13, variance 0.69); (9) Given
considerable responsibility (mean 3.67, variance 0.91); (10)
Performance evaluated objectively (mean 3.62, variance 0.72); and
(11) Problems discussed with supervisor (mean 3.85, variance
0.66). The first four items are derived from questions in the
interviews dealing with the type of people the agency hired. They
essentially address the issue of values that are seen as
important to the agency in the employees it hires. The next six
items are derived from questions dealing with performance
evaluation and the reward mechanism. They deal both with the
values and certain norms which are important to the agency. The
last item addresses the issue of the complaint mechanism which is
a norms dimension.
All, but one, of the above variables have means above 3.5
indicating high to very high levels of agreement. At the same
96
time they have variances less than one on scales which range from
1 to 5 reflecting low dispersion around the mean. The one item
which has a low variance but also has a low mean is the item
about preference being given to outsiders when filling job
positions. This item has a mean of 2.13 which reflects high
disagreement and, therefore, corresponds with the item which
suggests that job openings are first made known to people within
the agency (mean 4.54).
A careful perusal of the above indicates that most of the
items which have very low variances around the mean are items
which deal with the personality characteristics of the employees
reflecting the importance the agency puts on the type of people
it employs. The balance of the items address the issues of the
reward systems in the agency.
Relationship between Power and Influence Tactics
The focus of this research is to establish the relationships
between the bases of power and the influence tactics used to
exercise that power, and to explain the motivations for the
choices of influence tactics. The relationships themselves were
established through a structural equation model. Prior to
describing the results of the LISREL analysis, we will look at
descriptive data on the variables which entered into the
analysis.
The means and variations on the power scales (TABLE 5) show
that referent power had the highest mean (3.86) on a 5-point
97
scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree with a variance of
0.72. Expert power is the only other power scale to have a mean
greater than 3.00 (3.28) with a variance of 0.88. The three
remaining bases of power: legitimate power, coercive power, and
reward power had low means of 2.97, 2.29, and 2.12 respectively
reflecting the fact that the employees perceive themselves as not
having these bases of power. While 1 and 2 on the power scales
reflect disagreement with the possession of those power bases, 3
reflects neither agreement nor disagreement.
The influence scales were developed by Kipnis, Schmidt, and
Wilkinson (1980). The analysis uses only 5 scales due to low
reliability coefficients on the others. The five that are
retained for analysis are ingratiation, exchange, assertiveness,
rationality, and upward appeal. Rationality as an influence
tactic stands out with a very high mean of 4.41 with a variance
of 0.36 (TABLE 7). All the other influence tactics have very low
means. The means on the influence scales seem to indicate a very
strong perception that rationality is a vital component in the
influence process in this agency.
Studying the correlations between the power scales and the
influence tactics we find only five pearson coefficients that are
statistically significant (TABLE 9). The correlations that are
significant include coercive power with ingratiation (0.36),
coercive power with exchange (0.39), legitimate power with
exchange (0.32), referent power with upward appeal (-0.29), and
expert power with upward appeal (-0.28). The correlation between
98
coercive power and ingratiation suggests that the greater the
level of agreement, which here is derived from the scales used to
measure the perceptions of power bases and influence tactics,
perceiving coercive power as a base of power, the higher the
degree of agreement on ingratiation as an influence tactic. (It
is important to note the difference in the use of the word
agreement here as distinguished from its use when talking about
the culture items. In the case of the culture items agreement
was discussed in terms of variance around the means, whereas in
the case of the power and influence measures agreement is
discussed in terms of the response on the 5-point scales used to
measure the perceptions of power and influence). The
relationships between coercive power and exchange and legitimate
power and exchange are likewise positive relationships; however,
the other two significant correlations are negative. The two
negative correlations are with upward appeal as an influence
tactic. The correlations suggest that the greater the degree of
agreement on referent power and coercive power as bases of power,
the less the likelihood of using upward appeal as an influence
tactic.
In looking at the correlations theory suggests that coercive
power as a power base gets reflected through the use of assertive
tactics to influence others or the use of sanctions and blocking
tactics. While exchange as an influence tactic can be seen as a
form of assertive behavior and thereby is consistent with one's
expectations, the relationship between coercive power and
99
ingratiation is unexpected. The correlation between legitimate
power and exchange is positive. Theory suggests that legitimate
power is exercised through directive tactics and the use of
assertiveness or through the use of rational tactics. Once again
using the same rationale as above the nature of the correlation
between legitimate power and exchange can be said to be
consistent with expectations. The correlation between referent
power and upward appeal and between expert power and upward
appeal are not suggested by theory.
Results of the LISREL Analysis
LISREL was used to test the literature based model described
earlier. Table 10 and Figure 2 present the results of this
LISREL analysis. The chi-square for the this model which
represented the possible relationships as suggested in the
literature is 21.42 with 15 degrees of freedom (p=0.12). The
nonsignificant chi-square for this model shows that the data fits
the model, although barely. Subsequent iterations through the
additions of paths and final deletions of nonsignificant paths
yields a model that has a much better fit between data and model.
On looking at the literature based model one finds only two
structural coefficients to have significant t-values. Those
paths are from legitimate power to assertiveness as an influence
tactic (0.36) and from reward power to ingratiation (-0.34). All
the other coefficients are nonsignificant. Figure 1 presents the
100
literature based model alongwith the structural coefficients for
the various paths.
The first run resulted in the addition of one path from expert
power to upward appeal due to a modification index of 6.86 for
this relationship. This relationship was added because it made
conceptual sense. It would seem appropriate that an individual
with low expert power might choose to appeal to those above in
their attempts at getting their views accepted. The second
iteration suggested an addition of yet another path from
legitimate power to exchange as an influence tactic. The
modification index was 2.23 for this path. This path, too seemed
theoretically possible because those with legitimate power have
resources to exchange. However, the use of exchange by those
with legitimate power would seem to be necessary only when the
legitimacy of that power is not accepted by those under the
powerholder.
The third iteration added no more paths and at this stage all
paths with nonsignificant t-values were discarded which resulted
in the final model. (Figure 2) The chi-square for the final model
is 13.17 with 20 degrees of freedom (p=0.87). The chi-square for
the final model is not statistically significant indicating
convergence of s and S. Additionally, the ratio of the
chi-square to the degrees of freedom is 0.6, which is less than
Wheaton, et al.'s (1977) rule of thumb stipulating that a ratio
less than 5 indicates a good fit of the model to the data.
101
The chi-square for the null model is 35.75 with 25 degrees of
freedom (p=0.07). This chi-square is significant at the p<0.10
level of confidence, reflecting convergence between s and S to a
far lesser degree. The chi-square difference statistic between
the final model and the null model is 22.58 with 5 degrees of
freedom (p<0.01) indicating significant improvement of the final
model over the null model (Table 11).
The final model is also compared to the literature based
model. The chi-square difference statistic for the literature
based model to null model comparison is 14.33 with 10 degrees of
freedom, which is a nonsignificant coefficient; while the
chi-square difference statistic for the final model to literature
based model comparison is 8.25 with 5 degrees of freedom,
significant at p<0.01. The significance of the chi-square
difference statistics for both the final model to the literature
based model and the final model to null model relationships
indicate significant improvement of the proposed model over the
literature based and the null models.
The coefficient of determination for the final model is 0.46.
The adjusted goodness-of-fit index is 0.84 which is high. The
root mean square residual is 0.07 which is quite low. And the
plot of the normalized residuals has a slope greater than 1,
which too indicates a good fit of the model to the data.
Looking at the individual links, the literature suggested the
presence of 10 possible links between the five power bases and
the five influence tactics. These links are shown in Figure 1.
102
Of the 10 possible links our analysis yielded only three
significant links.
Reward power has causal paths leading to ingratiation and to
rationality as influence tactics. The reward to ingratiation
relationship was predicted by the literature. Theory suggests
that reward power is often exercised through ingratiation. The
data suggests that this is a negative relationship. The
literature also suggests that there is a relationship between
reward power and assertiveness; however, the data does not
support that. There is a link between reward power and
rationality in the data which is not predicted in the literature.
In our data this is a negative relationship.
According to theory legitimate power was expected to have
links to ingratiation, assertiveness, rationality, and upward
appeal as influence tactics. Our analysis yielded only one
significant relationship out of the four predicted by theory.
This link is to assertiveness as an influence tactic. The
relationship is positive in direction as predicted by theory.
None of the other three relationships were significant; however,
legitimate power did have a significant link to exchange as an
influence tactic. The link is positive.
Expert power, according to theory, is expected to have two
links: one to exchange and the other to rationality. Our data
yields only one significant relationship from expert power to
rationality and is positive in direction.
103
Referent power and coercive power have no links to any of the
influence tactics although there are some significant
correlations (Table 10). The strongest link suggested by the data
is the link from legitimate power to assertiveness as an
influence tactic (0.41). The relationship is positive in
direction and suggests that as one's legitimate power base
increases the more likely the individual is to use assertiveness
as an influence tactic. The next strongest link is from reward
power to rationality as an influence tactic. This link is,
however, negative in direction (-0.40) implying that in this firm
as one's ability to grant rewards increases the less likely
he/she is to use rationality as an influence tactic. Overall the
links established by the data lend minimal support for the model
based on the available literature in the area.
104
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
We began this research with some questions of interest to us
regarding power and its exercise. While traditional power and
influence literature studied these concepts independently of one
another and, in fact, frequently used these terms
interchangeably, this research makes use of a more recent
perspective which holds that power is what one has and influence
is how one chooses to exercise it, thereby differentiating
between the two concepts. Undoubtedly, there is literature in
the area of power and influence which emphasizes the need to
differentiate between the two; however, empirical research that
actually establishes a structural relationship between the
various power bases and influence tactics is nonexistent.
Furthermore, the contribution of this research is that it
considers the simultaneous existence of the various power bases
within the organizational context and investigates the choice of
influence tactics in that organization. Existing research treats
the relationships as bivariate. It also attempts to explain the
relationships in terms of the overall organization and its
culture rather than in terms of micro variables, e.g. status of
target, personality of powerholder, etc.
The research emphasizes the importance of the culture concept
to the study of power and influence. It suggests that the
organizational culture is very important to the understanding of
105
power and influence and the relationship between the two. The
results reinforce the usefulness of the culture concept in
comprehending the motivations underlying the choices of influence
tactics in organizations.
Culture of the Agency
This research found the culture of the agency to be quite
strong. The notion of strength is borrowed from Deal and Kennedy
(1982). They suggest that in a strong culture elements of the
culture are shared by all its members. In the agency studied we
found that to be definitely true with respect to the philosophy
of the company. The interviews indicated to us that the
philosophy was extremely well ingrained into the minds of the
employees. They all used the very same words in describing the
philosophy. The questionnaire also yielded very high levels of
agreement and very low variance reflecting the degree of
consensus that existed in the agency on its philosophy. In fact,
looking at the variances of the culture items one found that
three of the four items with the lowest variances around the
means addressed the philosophy of the agency. It was very
obvious that the employees were made aware of the philosophy and
they believed that it existed. They suggested that the
philosophy which guided the agency in the early days of its
existence continues to be very strong despite the recent changes
that have taken place. When questioned about the extent of
change in the philosophy, the general response was 'none at all'.
106
The fact that this philosophy has endured seems to suggest that
it is cherished and serves as a guideline for the values and
norms in the agency.
In addition to the philosophy on which there is a high degree
of consensus, there is also strong agreement on the importance of
people at this agency. Employees are seen as an asset and
keeping them happy in every way possible seems to be vital to
this agency. The interviewees stressed the importance of the
type of people the agency hired. The importance of interpersonal
skills, clear thinking, sense of humor, ability to handle
responsibility, and positive attitudes were all emphasized by the
interviewees and received high levels of agreement throughout the
agency. The interviewees also suggested that the agency put a
considerable amount of emphasis on the analytical skills and on
the ability to handle great amounts of stress. The importance
placed on individual skills at this agency and its importance to
its culture is, perhaps, a direct outcome of the nature of the
agency’s operations. It has for a long time been dealing with
industrial accounts, advertising for which has generally tended
to be more rational in appeal, requiring the use of logic and
rationality in the advertising appeals. This emphasis on
rationality with respect to the advertising it does requires the
agency to hire people who have the appropriate skills.
Along with the high level of agreement on the type of people
the agency employed, there was also a great deal of consensus on
the actions the agency took to keep its employees happy.
107
Employees were recognized for their contributions. Recognition
came both in public fora and in private. Rewards were not always
monetary and quite often were just verbal recognition for a job
well done. The 'all-hands meetings' which were mentioned by all
of the interviewees were seen as important. There was a general
feeling that the employees were treated fairly and well. They
appeared to feel an important and integral part of the
organization.
The high degree of consensus on a number of items dealing with
the culture might at first seem somewhat peculiar. It seems to
reflect a party line particularly when everyone interviewed
described the philosophy in nearly the same words. However, when
the employees were interviewed it was quite obvious that there
existed in the agency a strong sense of family. This sense of
family was, perhaps, a part of the 'deep structure' of the
culture of the agency. The agency was small and all the
employees knew each other by their first names. There was
frequent interaction among the employees on a daily basis because
of the size of the agency and the layout of the offices.
Additionally, the founder of the agency who still came into work
tried very hard to maintain the feeling of family with which he
began the agency. Unlike large advertising agencies, where
interactions on a regular basis take place primarily among those
working on the same account or in the same department, at this
agency interactions were very different in nature. Everyone
seemed to interact with one another and helped each other out on
108
various accounts. There definitely was a sense of family and in
a family it might not be unusual to find all the members speaking
the same language. That might explain the low level of variance
in the items addressing the philosophy.
In looking at the degree of consensus that exists in this
agency we must realize that this agency is, perhaps, somewhat
unique. Its uniqueness derived from the scope of its business,
which initially was industrial goods advertising; its size which
is very small; and the values of its founder. Advertising
agencies have always been profit oriented. This agency was no
exception either; however, the importance given to profits was
subservient to the happiness of the employees and that is where
this agency was unique. Perhaps, the agency was able to do this
because it was a profitable entity to begin with. Since it was
an industrial accounts agency, the accounts were relatively
stable over long periods of time. Unlike consumer goods accounts
where changes in agencies are more frequently seen, industrial
accounts do not change at the same rate. The stability of the
accounts ensured financial stability, allowing the agency to
concentrate on employee happiness. Furthermore, the agency had
won numerous awards for its work and often with recognition comes
rewards and satisfaction. The size of the agency allowed these
accomplishments to be shared by all the employees which was once
again quite unique to the agency. But above all the influence of
the founder of the agency is very strong. He was very explicit
about his values and hiring at this agency was strongly
109
influenced by these values. He has also tried hard over the
years to keep the agency from growing too much, because he felt
that too much growth could rid the agency of that sense of family
which he valued very much. The sense of family that is so
prevalent at this agency, perhaps, accounts for the fact that
employees at this agency are so favorably disposed toward the
firm. They experience a sense of job stability and a much
reduced sense of uncertainty in a business which is known to have
a great deal of frequent turnover and a relative lack of
stability. These are undoubtedly some of the reasons why the
culture of this agency is the way it is and its uniqueness must
be recognized. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to
generalize the results of this research.
Despite the high level of consensus there were definitely
certain areas of disagreement and during the course of the
interviews certain issues were mentioned which indicated that
there were specific situations when an employee or two felt
unfairly treated, an occurrence frequently seen even in a family.
On the issue of problem solving in the agency and the authority
structure, it was generally verbalized that no rigid, formal
authority structure existed and that employees were expected to
handle their problems amongst themselves; however, quite often,
one found the supervisors being asked to sort out disagreements.
With respect to promotions, the agency liked to give them as a
form of reward for a job well done; however, the agency's small
size prevented the growth of career paths and that did create
110
some unhappiness. The view that no formal authority structure
existed was reflected in the questionnaire data as well, where
the mean on the item was very low. On the problem solving issues
the questionnaire indicated a range of views through means which
were somewhat high as well as low. While problems were discussed
with the supervisor, there was relatively low agreement on the
issue of solving one's own problems. Employees felt that
managers quite often were asked to resolve problems among
employees.
The culture of the agency studied in terms of its philosophy,
values, and norms yielded some interesting facts about the
agency. It is undoubtedly a somewhat unique agency and that fact
must be recognized. However, it is quite obvious that the
culture of this agency is governed by the nature of its business
and the personality of its founder and that fact may be, at a
conceptual level, representative of other agencies. But of
greater relevance to this research is the way in which the
culture seemed to impact on the perceptions of the power bases
and the influence tactics used in the agency.
Power
If one looks at the means on the scales measuring the bases of
power, one finds that the base of power with the highest mean is
referent power, followed by expert power. While referent power
has a mean of 3.86 on a one-to-five scale, expert power has a
mean of 3.28. These two means are statistically different at the
111
0.01 level of confidence. Referent power is the only power base
which has a mean that is statistically different from all the
other means at the pC.Ol level of confidence. The three other
1 power scales which were used in subsequent analysis all had means
less than 3.00.
j Perhaps, the perception that referent power was the base of
i
i power which seemed to be most strongly prevalent in the agency is
i
j a function of the fact that there was considerable emphasis
| placed on people at this agency. Mutual respect among the
i
I employees was a value that the agency expected of its workers.
Some of the interviewees mentioned the fact that one
characteristic which they saw and appreciated at the agency was
the amount of respect that was accorded them regardless of their
position in the organizational hierarchy. While mutual respect
was a valued commodity at this agency, perhaps there was the
underlying belief that mutual respect could flourish only in an
atmosphere of trust and confidence in each other's abilities and
devotion to the organization. Without trust and confidence in
each other's abilities it might be difficult to solicit and,
furthermore, listen to the opinions and suggestions of other
people in the agency. Perhaps, it is this trust which exists at
I the level of the 'deep structure' of the culture of the agency
alongwith a sense of family that makes referent power the
predominant base of power in the agency.
I
j In addition, if one looks at the means and the variances
I
I around the means of the culture items (TABLE 4) one finds that
i
112
those with high means and low variances around them include (1)
Interpersonal skills are required; (2) Clear thinking is
required; (3) Sense of humor is required; and (4) Positive
attitudes are required. All these items are values that the
agency looks for in its employees and are individual level
characteristics of the employees. The fact that these four
variables have a low variance around the means might help explain
the degree to which referent power is seen as important at this
agency. After all, referent power is a function of how one
perceives the individual one chooses to grant power to and the
four variables described earlier contribute to those perceptions.
Similarly the high mean on the expert power base could be
attributed to the importance the agency placed on the analytical
skills and the ability to think clearly. These were both values
which the agency held as important. As interviewee number 1
suggested: the agency placed a great deal of emphasis on
strategic skills and looked for people who were capable of
analyzing data, interpreting it and presenting the results. This
perception was shared by some of the other interviewees and the
questionnaire results indicate that the two variables mentioned
above have relatively high means. Also the variable "clear
thinking is required" has a very low variance while the
"analytical skills are required" variable has a variance that is
somewhat higher. Interestingly enough the importance of
technical skills does not appear to be very high. The mean on
the item is low and the variance is high. This helps explain the
113
fact that while expert power is the second most important base of
power, its mean is still significantly lower than that of
referent power. This would seem'to imply that the ability to
handle and use information is a valued commodity at this firm
although technical expertise in any given area of advertising is
relatively less important.
The relatively higher levels of agreement on referent power
and expert power as the predominant power bases in the
organization could also be a function of the people orientation
and the information orientation of the advertising business.
Regardless, the point to be emphasized is that the nature of the
business is a part of the culture and contributes to the
philosophy, values, and norms that the organization might hold
dear to itself. It must, therefore, be considered in studying
the power bases which exist in an organization. In addition, it
also suggests that since the nature of different businesses vary,
one is likely to find different bases of power being perceived as
the predominant ones in different organizations.
The other bases of power: legitimate, coercive, and reward
power all have low levels of agreement as bases of power in this
agency. Legitimate power has a mean of 2.97 which reflects the
view that the respondents neither agree nor disagree about its
use as a power base. Obviously, any organization has employees
who have legitimate power by virtue of their position in the
hierarchy and, therefore, it exists as a power base and that is
reflected in the results of the structural equation model
114
relating the power base to influence tactics. However, its low
mean is, perhaps, a reflection of the fact that people who have
it do not see themselves using that legitimate power as a base of
power with any degree of frequency at this agency. Furthermore,
the low mean on legitimate power as a base of power could also be
explained by the low mean and high variance around the mean on
two culture variables. The variables (1) a formal authority
system exists, and (2) managers solve your problems, both have
relatively low means reflecting the fact that position in the
hierarchy is relatively unimportant at this agency. And since
legitimate power is a function of one’s position in the hierarchy
of an organization, this base of power is relatively weak in this
agency.
Similarly, coercive power and reward power, both of which can
be related to one's position in the hierarchy seem to be bases of
power very rarely used. The reasons for their lack of importance
at this agency appears to be a function of the way in which
people at this agency are treated. The mutual respect that is
expected to be given to each other might preclude using reward
power and coercive power in order to influence others.
Furthermore, the two items above and the following items: (1)
Money rewards given frequently; (2) Public recognition of
performance; and (3) Year-end bonuses given frequently, all of
which have relatively high variances around the mean, indicate
that there is a greater degree of disagreement about their
importance as items of the culture of this agency. In turn, that
115
might explain the perception that legitimate, coercive, and
reward power exist as bases of power to a much lesser degree than
referent and expert power.
Influence Tactics
When one looks at the means on the influence tactics scales
one finds a distinct bias towards the use of rationality as an
influence tactic. The mean on this scale is a very high 4.41 and
the variance is a very low 0.36. The mean on this scale is
statistically different from the other influence tactics used at
the pC.Ol level of confidence. This ties in very well with the
emphasis the agency places on the type of people it hires and on
their abilities. The interviewees all suggested that there was
the expectation that people were expected to come to meetings at
the agency well-prepared and ready to logically defend their
positions. In addition, because they were often dealing with
clients spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising,
there was the constant pressure on them to be prepared to justify
their recommendations to their clients with considerable amounts
of data. This made it necessary for the employees to gather
information and use it efficiently and effectively both within
the agency and when meeting with clients.
The survey data too supports the view that rationality might
be the most frequently used influence tactic. The culture items:
(1) interpersonal skills are required; (2) analytical skills are
required; and (3) clear thinking is required, once again indicate
116
the importance of one's ability to be logical and rational. They
all have high means and the first and the third variables have
low variances indicating the consensus that exists in the agency
vis-a-vis the importance of rationality in the agency.
The other influence tactics which include ingratiation,
exchange, assertion, and upward appeal appear to be tactics which
employees perceive themselves as using infrequently or not at
all. The reason for the relative lack of importance of these
other influence tactics could be the result of the fact that the
employees feel that they always have the ear of the others
regardless of their position in the hierarchy, so long as they
make logical sense, making the use of other tactics unnecessary.
Ingratiation is an influence tactic that is used normally when
one's views and ideas are not heard. At this agency everyone's
views are solicited and heard if presented in a logical manner
making it quite unnecessary to employ ingratiatory tactics.
Similarly, exchange involves the use of giving something to
get something in return and is normally used in situations where
hierarchical distinctions are clearly present. At this agency we
find that people do not appear to use their positions in the
hierarchy as bases of power, thereby eliminating the need to use
exchange tactics. The same logic holds true for assertion and
upward appeals not being used as influence tactics. Both these
tactics expect the existence of distinct hierarchical
relationships which are non-existent in this agency as reflected
in the means of the items: (1) formal authority system exists;
117
(2) money rewards given frequently; and (3) managers solve your
problems (TABLE 4).
Power Bases to Influence Tactics Relationships
When looking at the links between power and influence,
research suggests a link between legitimate power and
assertiveness. According to the research this link is positive
in direction implying that the higher one's position in the
organization's hierarchy or the greater the legitimate power, the
greater the likelihood of using assertiveness to influence others
in the organization. Data for this agency supported the
literature. It is also a very strong relationship with a
structural coefficient of 0.41. The literature implies that when
an individual is higher in the hierarchy, he/she has a number of
types of influence tactics to choose from, with assertiveness
being a frequently used tactic. In this organization although
assertiveness is not an influence tactic that is frequently used,
as the mean score on the scale suggests, it still has a strong
relationship to legitimate power. This relationship could be a
function of the fact that while members in the organization
prefer to use rational arguments to influence others, perhaps,
there are times when disagreements abound with everybody's views
being heard necessitating the use of assertiveness by those who
are responsible for making the decisions. This seems to receive
support in the interview data where one interviewee stated that
while employees were normally expected to resolve problems and
118
disputes among themselves one finds that quite often the
supervisor is called in to take care of the issue. It is an
influence tactic that has only a single link leading to it.
Legitimate power also has a link to exchange as an influence
tactic. This tactic involves the giving of something to get
something else. It is a relationship that theory does not
suggest because those with legitimate power do not have to give
something to get something in return. However, in this
organization because there is so much emphasis on keeping
employees happy and listening to everybody's views and opinions,
that there appears to be a desire not to push anything too hard
on anybody. The culture of the agency emphasizes the reward
system at the agency and its significance to the organization.
This would seem to suggest that there is a tendency to reward
employees for what they do implying an exchange relationship.
Those who have legitimate power are in a position to do so and,
therefore, tend to use it albeit infrequently.
The third relationship is between expert power and rationality
as an influence tactic. This is a positive relationship as
suggested by theory and supported by the data. The implication
is that the greater one’s expert power the more likely he/she is
to use rational arguments in the influence process. This is a
very natural relationship and in an organization where
rationality appears to be an important aspect of the culture
there is nothing surprising about the nature and direction of
this link.
119
Rationality is also the only influence tactic that has two
paths leading to it. The second path originates from reward
power. The direction of this relationship is negative, implying
that the greater the ability to give rewards the less the
likelihood of being rational while trying to influence
decision-making. The existing research does not specify a link
here. But if one thinks about the relationship it appears to
make logical sense that if one has the ability to grant rewards
then one is likely to use that as a tool to exchange to get
others to comply, reducing the need to be rational. The
relationship does not seem to be unusual and can be explained. At
this agency the strength of the relationship could be explained
in the same manner as that between legitimate power and
assertiveness: in other words, it is a tactic which those in
power use when all other means fail. As for those in lower
positions in the organizational hierarchy, since their ability to
grant rewards is low, they have to use the tactic which is most
likely to be effective in this agency. As the culture suggests
this tactic is likely to be the use of information and reasoning
and, hence, the strength of the relationship.
The final link is between reward power and ingratiation. This
is a negative relationship both in theory and as seen in this
data. The culture of the agency suggests that because there is a
great deal of respect and willingness to listen to reason, the
need to use ingratiatory tactics is reduced. However, when used
120
it is by those who have low reward power. The nature and
direction of the relationship is as predicted by theory.
Most of the relationships themselves are not very uncommon.
What is of interest here is the degree to which rationality as an
influence tactic is used in comparison to the others. It is a
tactic which is very frequently used and the only one which has
two paths leading to it. In addition, the other relationships
can all be explained through aspects of the culture of the agency
which are valued by it. Furthermore, if one looks at the
perceptions of the power bases, one finds that referent power and
expert power are the predominant power bases, reflecting the
importance of people and types of people the agency employs.
Perhaps, another firm which does not put the same emphasis on
people and the happiness of the employees might be more prone to
use other influence tactics.
At this stage it might be of interest to look at the reasons
why some of the expected links between the power bases and
influence tactics do not exist. The referent power to
ingratiation as an influence tactic link is not supported by the
data. That could be because while referent power is the
predominant base of power, there also exists at the agency a
great deal of mutual respect. Other’s ideas are heard and one
does not need to use ingratiatory tactics to be heard. Referent
power implies respect from the one granting power to the other
party and ingratiation usually is used when the one being granted
referent power fails to acknowledge the presence of the one
121
granting the power. At this agency that situation does not
exist. Mutual respect is expected and given.
The relationship from legitimate power to ingratiation does
not exist at this agency. Once again the lack of this link can
be explained in terms of the existence of mutual respect and the
non-usage of legitimate power as a predominant base of power. The
low mean on legitimate power indicates that although it does
exist as a base of power, its use is only marginal. However,
because even those with legitimate power respect and trust those
below themselves it makes the use of ingratiation unnecessary.
Legitimate power also has a link to upward appeal as predicted in
the literature but not supported by the data. Since views and
opinions are heard at all levels of the organization's hierarchy
the need to go over someone’s head, implied in upward appeal, is
not necessary. The lack of the relationship between legitimate
power and rationality could be because rationality as an
influence tactic is used in this agency regardless of one's
position in the hierarchy and, hence, the lack of a specific link
between the two.
Literature also suggests the existence of a link between
coercive power and assertiveness which is not supported in our
data. The reason for the lack of this relationship could be just
the perception that coercive power does not exist as a power base
at this agency.
Finally, the literature suggests a link between expert power
and exchange which is not supported by the data. Exchange as an
122
influence tactic implies a manipulatory relationship where if one
has expertise one uses it as a tool to get something one wants.
At this agency once again the mutual respect and trust preclude
the need to encourage a manipulatory relationship and, therefore,
the lack of the relationship.
What this research suggests is that it is important for one to
look at the organization as a whole and at what it stands for.
Aspects which are important to the organization get reflected in
the ways in which people interact with one another. In order for
any degree of shared understanding to exist communication of the
culture is important. Elements of the culture are communicated
to the employees either directly or indirectly through the nature
of interpersonal interactions. This research suggests that this
organization's culture dictates what bases of power get exercised
and how they get exercised, thereby highlighting the
communication aspect of organizational behavior.
In an organization where even those low in the hierarchy state
that they get heard so long as they are able to logically argue
their position reflects an organizational entity that values the
contributions of every single employee. It makes for a more
cohesive unit. The emphasis on maintaining a family atmosphere
at the agency was mentioned during the course of the interviews.
What the research suggests is that power as the potential to
influence exists in various forms. However, the manner in which
it gets exercised is guided by the norms of the organization,
norms which the organization sees as reflecting its ideology.
123
Power is a possession which an individual has, but its exercise
(influence behavior) takes place within the confines of an
organization and is governed by its rules of behavior. It is,
therefore, important for one to study power and influence not
merely as two sets of variables, but as behavior that takes place
within the context of the culture of the organization.
Implications of the Research
The results of this research have some definite implications.
At the theoretical level it is the first attempt at building a
model of power to influence relationships with the assumption
that multiple power bases exist simultaneously in organizations.
The importance of this is that individuals in organizations while
having various power bases and influence tactics available to
them choose to exercise only some of those power bases using
specific influence tactics in accordance with the culture of the
organization. In other words the culture dictates to the
employees the type of power they have and how best to exercise
it. It, therefore, becomes important to study the culture of the
organization to see what are the key operants in the organization
which play a role in determining behaviors. Undoubtedly the
nature of this study precludes any sweeping generalizations;
however, one can conclude with a degree of certainty, that the
culture of the organization does appear to have an impact on what
are expected and accepted behaviors within organizational
boundaries. The research suggests that we need to study power
124
and influence as two different but related concepts and that the
relationship is governed by the values and norms of the
organization. It also suggests that if the nature of the power
bases and influence tactics and the relationship between the two
in this organization are a function of the culture of the agency,
then the relationships in other organizations might be very
different because of varying cultures, emphasizing the importance
of culture to the study of power and influence.
This research also has theoretical relevance because of the
absolute lack of research into the advertising agency as an
organizational entity. While various tasks within advertising
agencies have been studied, the agency as a decision making body
has not been the subject of much scrutiny. This research fills a
definite gap in that area.
The research also has practical implications particularly to
those who work in the advertising business. It informs us about
the culture of the advertising agency. While different agencies
might have different cultures one element of the advertising
business which is common to all agencies is the idea that the
agency is a workplace consisting of creative individuals working
at a creative endeavor using people and information as its key
raw material. This aspect is common to all agencies. That being
so it might be reasonable for us to expect to find rationality an
effective influence tool and to suggest that people skills and
analytical skills must be qualities that all agencies might look
for in hiring people. Agencies are constantly in a power
125
relationship with their clients and are frequently put in
situations where they need to convince the client about the
strength and validity of their ideas. In order for that
relationship to prosper care must be taken to nurture the
relationship in a careful manner without offending the client and
that process ought to begin within the agency. Rationality as
the key and most effective influence tactic must be encouraged
within the organization so that the process of using it in
relationships with the clients is facilitated. Obviously one
needs to study a few more agencies to find out if rationality is
or is not the predominantly used influence tactic. However, this
research definitely suggests that rationality is perhaps the
ideal influence tactic regardless of the power base in one's
possession.
Suggestions for Further Research
Despite the two major weaknesses in this study there are some
important conclusions we can draw which would be useful in giving
us a direction for further research in the area of power and
influence.
Most important, the bases of power individuals perceive
themselves as having appear to be strongly influenced by the
organization's values and norms. When we look at the means for
perceptions of the bases of power that are seen to be used in the
organization we find that referent and expert power are the
highest. This seems to reflect the value the agency places on
126
people, individual capabilities, and the importance of knowledge.
While legitimate power exists in every organization, people at
this agency do not see it as a very strong base of power and the
interviews suggest that it is used only when absolutely
necessary. Similarly, their perceptions of the influence tactics
most frequently used also appears to be influenced by the
culture. Rationality was significantly different from all the
other influence tactics in terms of its usage in the agency.
This, too, can be explained in terms of the value the culture
places on the importance of using logic and information to
influence decision-making. This leads us to conclude that the
values and norms which constitute part of the culture of an
organization are important for the study of power and influence.
Second, the relationships between power and influence tactics
reflect the fact that people's choices of influence tactics are
not a direct outcome of the type of power bases they possess. The
relationships can be better understood when considered within the
parameters laid down by the culture of the organization.
Third, the fact that the culture serves as an explanation for
the relationships between power and influence at this agency
suggests the use of the culture perspective for the study of
power and influence. Using the approach might help us better
understand the reasons behind individual behavior choices.
Fourth, the significance of culture in explaining the
relationships in this study suggests that when organizations with
significantly different cultures merge the problems of
127
appropriate choices of behaviors is likely to be compounded. This
might serve as an explanation for some of the failures in merged
companies. A number of these firms merge for financial reasons
but find the process of working together very difficult. The
advertising industry has been bit by the merger bug and has seen
a number of very big mergers. Post merger problems have since
surfaced leaving these agencies gasping for survival.
Fifth, in order to build on this research and to make it more
generalizable future researchers must attempt to study a larger
agency and also attempt to look at subcultures within agencies.
The size of this agency was definitely responsible for the
culture of this agency and precluded us from studying the
subcultures which we know to exist in an organization. Studying
a larger agency might give us a look at the culture of an agency
that is more representative of the agency business and would also
allow us to look at subcultures such as creative subculture,
account services subculture, etc.
Sixth, in order to study the culture of an agency in action
one must be able to analyze the actual behaviors and note their
difference from stated behavior patterns. This can be ideally
done through participant observation. Therefore, future
researchers must attempt to incorporate that in their
methodology. It will enhance their analysis of the culture.
Seventh, this research attempted to develop a model
representing the relationship between power and influence and to
use culture as an explanation for the nature of the
128
relationships. In order to build on this one could include other
variables described earlier in the literature review section as
intervening variables in the power to influence relationships
while considering the model in its entirety. Previous research
did study the effect of certain variables on how power gets
exercised but at a bivariate level of analysis. The next stage
is to use those variables as moderator variables in the
relationship being studied, while acknowledging the simultaneous
existence of multiple power bases and influence tactics.
These are just some suggestions for areas of further research.
Following-up on these recommendations can be very useful towards
understanding organizational issues. The notion of
organizational culture is very important to the study of
organizations as has been demonstrated by a number of
researchers. This study merely re-emphasizes that proposition
with a very specific topic area in mind.
129
References
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and
organizational effectiveness. Homewood, IL.: Irwin.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice:
Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A
theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Bacharach, S. B. & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and politics
in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bacharach, S. B. & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Bargaining. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, H. S. (1982). Cultures: A sociological review. Yale
Review. 71(4): 513-527.
Bentler, P. M. & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin. 88(3): 588-606.
Bierstedt, R. (1950). An analysis of social power. American
Sociological Review. 15(6'): 730-738.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1961). Reactions to intergroup
competition under win-lose conditions. Management Science.
7(4): 420-435.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York: John Wiley.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to
understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brandt, S. C. (1981). Strategic planning in emerging
companies. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and
organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Cavanagh, G. F. (1984). American business values (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
130
Clegg, S. (1975). Power, rule and domination: A critical and
empirical understanding of power In sociological theory and
evervdav life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Clegg, S. (1979). The theory of power and organization.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Conrad, C. (1983). Organizational power: Faces and symbolic
forms. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.),
Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach.
Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science.
2(3): 201-215.
Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Deutsch, M. & Krauss, R. M. (1960). The effect of threat upon
interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Abnormal & Social
Psychology. 61(2): 181-189.
Ellis, T. & Child, J. (1973). Placing stereotypes of the
manager into perspective. The Journal of Management
Studies. 10m : 233-241.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American
Sociological Review. 27(1): 31-41.
Faulkner, R. T. (1982). Improvising on a triad. In J. Van
Maanen, J. M. Dabbs, Jr., & R. R. Faulkner (Eds.) Varieties
of qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Fink, E. L. & Monge, P. R. (1986). An exploration of
confirmatory factor analysis. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt
(Eds.), Progress in communication sciences. Vol.6. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Fleishman, E. A. & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of
leadership behavior related to employee grievances and
turnover. Personnel Psychology. 15(1): 43-56.
Fodor, E. M. (1976). Group stress, authoritarian style of
control, and use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology.
61(3): 313-318.
Fodor, E. M. (1978). Simulated work climate as an influence on
choice of leadership style. Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin. 4(1): 111-114.
131
French, J. R. Jr. & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social
power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.) Studies in social power. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL:
Dorsey.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in evervdav
life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine.
Goodstadt, B. E. & Hjelle, L. A. (1973). Power to the
powerless. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology.
2 7 m : 190-196.
Goodstadt, B. E. & Kipnis, D. (1970). Situational influences
on the use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology. 54(3'):
201-209.
Gouldner, A. (1952). The problem of succession in bureaucracy.
In R. Merton (Ed.) Reader in bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple
cultures and culture conflicts in organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 28(31: 359-376.
Hambrick, D. C. (1981). Environment, strategy and power within
top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.
26£H: 253-275.
Hemphill, J. K. (1950). Relations between the size of the
group and the behavior of superior leaders. Journal of
Social Psychology. 32(1): 11-22.
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., &
Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies theory of
intraorganizational power. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 16(2): 216-229.
Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., & Schneck, R.
E. (1974). Structural conditions of intraorganizational
power. Administrative Science Quarterly. 19(1): 22-44.
132
Hinkin, T. (1986). Development and application of new social
power measures in supervisor-subordinate relationships
(French and Raven). (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 47.
04A.
Hobbes, T. (1950). The leviathan. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Homan, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
House, R. (1984). Power in organizations: A social
psychological perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
University of Toronto.
Instone, D., Major, B., & Bunker, B. B. (1983). Gender,
self-confidence and social influence strategies: An
organizational simulation. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology. 44(2): 322-333.
Jelinek, M., Smircich, L., & Hirsch, P. (1983). Introduction:
A code of many colors. Administrative Science Quarterly.
28(3): 331-338.
Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of
linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood-
instrumental variables, and least squares method. (4th.
Ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kahn, R. L. (1964). Field studies of power in organizations.
In R. L. Kahn & E. Boulding (Eds.), Power and conflict in
organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Kaplan, A. (1964). Power in perspective. In R. L. Kahn & E.
Boulding (Eds.), Power and conflict in organizations. New
York: Basic Books.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic
organization: Diagnosing and changing counterproductive
styles of management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D. & Cosentino, J. (1969). Use of leadership powers in
industry. Journal of Applied Psychology. 53(6): 460-466.
Kipnis, D. & Lane, W. P. (1962). Self-confidence and
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 46(4): 291-295.
133
Kipnis, D. & Schmidt, S. M. (1983). An influence perspective
on bargaining within organizations. In M. H. Bazerman & R.
J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980).
Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in
getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology. 65(4):
440-452.
Kipnis, D., Silverman, A., & Copeland, C. (1973). The effects
of emotional arousal upon the use of coercion among negro
and union employees. Journal of Applied Psychology. 57(1):
38-43.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free
Press.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of
aggressive behavior in experimentally created social
climates. Journal of Social Psychology. 10(2): 271-299.
Liebert, R. M. & Poulos, R. W. (1971). Eliciting the 'norm of
giving': Effects of modeling and the presence of a witness
on children's sharing behavior. Proceedings of the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association. 6.
345-346.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Maier, N. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem
solving: The need for an integrative function.
Psychological Review. 74(4): 239-249.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in
complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly.
7 m : 349-364.
Michener, A. & Burt, M. R. (1974). Legitimacy as a base of
social influence. In J . T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on
social power. Chicago: Aldine.
Michener, A., Fleishman, J., Elliot, G., & Skolnick, J.
(1976). Influence use and target attributes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Michener, A. & Schwertf, M. (1972). Liking as a determinant of
power tactic preference. Sociometrv. 35: 190-195.
134
Mintzberg, H. (1983a). Power in and around organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1983b). The nature of managerial work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Mowday, R. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23(1):
137-156.
Mowday, R. (1979). Leader characteristics, self-confidence,
and methods of upward influence in organization decision
situations. Academy of Management Journal. 22(4): 709-725.
Mulder, M., Ritsema van Eck, J. R., & de Jong, R. D. (1971).
An organization in crisis and non-crisis situations. Human
Relations. 24(1): 19-41.
Mulder, M. & Stemerding, A. (1963). Threat, attraction to
group, and need for strong leadership. Human Relations.
16(4): 317-334.
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to
the theory of organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 1(1): 63-85.
Pascale, R. T. & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese
management. New York: Simon 6c Schuster.
Perrow, C. (1970). Departmental power and perspectives in
industrial firms. In M. N. Zald (Ed.), Power in
organizations. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Peters, J. J. 6e Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of
excellence. New York: Harper 6c Row.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 24(4^: 570-581.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield,
Mass.: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. 6c Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of
organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York:
Harper 6c Row.
135
Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III:
A multiple sequence model of group decision development.
Communication Monographs. 50(4'): 321-341.
Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W. , & Angle, H. L. (1981). The
politics of upward influence in organizations. In L. L.
Cummings & B. L. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior. 3. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Raven, B. H. (1974). The comparative analysis of power and
influence. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed*.), Perspectives in social
power. Chicago: Aldine.
Raven, B. H. & Kruglanski, A. (1970). Conflict and power. In
P. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict. New York:
Academic Press.
Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of political
cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28(3’ ): 414-437.
Ritti, R. R. & Funkhouser, G. R. (1982). The ropes to skip
and the ropes to know. Columbus, OH: Grid.
Rothbart, ML. (1968). Effects of motivation, equity and
compliance on the use of rewards and punishment. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology. 9(4): 353-362.
Russell, B. (1938). Power. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power - and how
they hold on to it: A strategic contingency model of power.
Organizational Dynamics. 5(3): 3-21.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the
profession of management. Industrial Management Review.
9(2): 1-15.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual
and organizational needs. Reading, MLass.: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating
organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics. Summer
1983, 13-28.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schudson, M. A. (1984). Advertising, the uneasy persuasion:
Its dubious impact on American society. New York: Basic
Books.
136
Sherif, M. (1961). Intereroup conflict and cooperation.
Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28(3'):
339-358.
Staub, E. (1971). The learning and unlearning of aggression.
In J. L. Singer (Ed.), The control of aggression and
violence. New York: Academic Press.
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free
Press.
Swingle, P. (1970a). The structure of conflict. New York:
Academic Press.
Swingle, P. (1970b). Exploitative behavior in non-zero-sum
games. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 16(1):
121-132.
Tagiuri, R. & Litwin, G. H. Organizational climate:
Exploration of a concept. Boston: Division of Research,
Harvard Graduate School of Business.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tedeschi, J. T. & Bonoma, T. V. (1972). Power and influence:
An introduction. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Social influence
processes. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Tedeschi, J. T., Lindskold, S., Horai, J., & Gahagan, J. P.
(1969). Social power and the credibility of promises.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 13(3): 253-261.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1973).
Conflict, power, and games. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Tedeschi, J. T,, Schlenker, B. R., & Lindskold, S. (1972). The
exercise of power and influence: The source of influence.
In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Social influence processes.
Chicago: Aldine.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Toch, H. (1970). The social psychology of violence. In E. L.
Megargee & J. Hkanson (Eds.), The dynamics of aggression.
New York: Harper & Row.
137
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In
R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization and
society. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). The self, the situation, and the rules
of interpersonal relations. In W. Bennis, et al. (Eds.),
Essavs in interpersonal dynamics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic
organization. New York: Free Press.
Wilkins, A. L. & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures:
Exploring the relationship between culture and
organizational performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 2 8 m : 468-481.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. R., & Summers, G. F.
(1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel
models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wuthnow, R. (1984). Cultural analysis: The work of Peter L.
Berger. Mary Douglas. Michel Foucault & Jurgen Habermas.
Boston, Mass.: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Zaleznik, A. & Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1975). Power and the
corporate mind. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin.
138
Department
TABLE 1
DEPARTMENTAL BREAKDOWN
No. of Employees Percent
Account Services 7 17.9
Creative 6 15.4
Media 4 10.3
Accounting 7 17.9
Administrative 6 15.4
Production 3 7.7
Traffic 2 5.1
Others 4 10.3
139
TABLE 2
Gender
GENDER BREAKDOWN
No. of Employees Percent
Female 27 69.2
Male 8 20.5
No response 4 10.3
MEANS, STANDARD
Variable
TABLE 3
DEVIATIONS, VARIATIONS, AND NO.
ON TENURE VARIABLES
Mean S.D.
(months)
OF CASES
N
Tenure in Present
Department 21.25 20.14 36
Tenure at Company 22.07 16.71 29
Tenure at Current
Job 13.38 12.40 29
140
TABLE 4
MEANS, STD.DEVIATIONS, VARIANCES AND N's ON CULTURE ITEMS
Variable Mean S.D. Variance N
Unique advertising is
very important
Making money is very
important
Enj oying the work is
very important
Interpersonal skills are
required
Analytical skills are
required
Clear thinking is
required
Work experience is important
to be hired
Expected to handle high
stress
Sense of humor required
Formal authority system
exists
Problems discussed with
supervisor
Communication mostly
through memos
Ideas freely discussed
Money rewards frequently
given
Public recognition of
performance
Year end bonuses given
frequently
Good work recognized
Job openings first made
known within agency
Performance important for
promotion
Expected to handle own
problems
Preference given to outsiders
when filling positions
Expected to perform only your
own task
4.85 0.49 0.23 39
4.64 0.54 0.29 39
4.64 0.58 0.34 39
4.23 0.96 0.92 39
3.92 1.01 1.02 39
4.46 0.68 0.47 39
3.67 1.13 1.28 39
3.82 1.02 1.05 39
4.28 0.94 0.89 39
2.90 1.10 1.20 39
3.85 0.81 0.66 39
3.67 1.03 1.07 39
3.67 1.01 1.02 39
3.31 1.13 1.27 39
4.05 1.07 1.16 39
4.13 1.02 1.04 38
4.28 0.76 0.58 39
4.54 0.55 0.31 39
4.23 0.99 0.97 39
3.41 1.07 1.14 39
2.13 0.83 0.69 39
2.87 1.24 1.54 39
141
Variable
TABLE 4 (Cont.)
Mean S.D. Variance N
Expected to resolve problems
on your own
Frequently called upon to do
extra work
Expected to get along
socially
Given considerable
responsibility
Managers solve your problems
Dress codes are informal
Positive attitudes required
Technical skills are
important
Expected not to be
confrontational
Expected to participate in
social activities
Can work on your own
Performance evaluated
objectively
Lack of norms of behavior
.18 1.05 1.10 39
.34 1.10 1.20 38
.05 1.00 1.00 39
.67 0.96 0.91 39
.15 1.04 1.08 39
.03 1.09 1.18 39
.21 0.80 0.64 39
.67 1.08 1.18 39
00
r— l
1.17 1.36 39
.15 1.06 1.13 39
.45 1.11 1.23 38
.62 0.85 0.72 39
.10 1.14 1.30 39
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
142
TABLE 5
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND VARIANCES ON POWER SCALES
Variable Mean Standard Deviation Variance
Referent Power 3.86 0.85 0.72
Legitimate Power 2.97 0.80 0.64
Coercive Power 2.29 0.81 0.66
Expert Power 3.28 0.94 0.88
Reward Power 2.12 0.89 0.79
143
TABLE 6
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ON POWER SCALES
1. Referent Power: 0.85
Make my supervisor feel valued
Make my supervisor feel like I approve of him/her
Make my supervisor feel personally accepted
2. Legitimate Power: 0.73
Make my supervisor feel that s/he has commitments to meet
Make my supervisor recognize that s/he has tasks to
accomplish
Give my supervisor the feeling that s/he has
responsibilities to fulfil
3. Coercive Power: 0.73
Make my supervisor's work difficult for him/her
Make things unpleasant for my supervisor
Make being at work distasteful for my supervisor
4. Expert Power: 0.64
Share with my supervisor my considerable experience
and training
Provide my supervisor with job related advice
5. Reward Power: 0.74
Influence my supervisor getting a pay raise
Influence my supervisor getting a promotion
6. Information Power: 0.53
Convince my supervisor about correctness of my
point of view
Provide my supervisor with non-task related information
Inform supervisor about what is correct behavior in
the organization
Make it difficult for the supervisor to integrate
into the organization
Inform supervisor about how to deal with other
people in the organization
144
TABLE 7
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND VARIANCES ON INFLUENCE SCALES
Variable Mean Standard Deviation Variance
Ingratiation 2.64 0.71 0.50
Exchange 1.83 0.63 0.40
Assertiveness 1.90 0.68 0.46
Rationality 4.41 0.60 0.36
Upward Appeal 1.68 0.64 0.41
145
TABLE 8
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS ON INFLUENCE SCALES
1. Ingratiation: 0.70
Sympathize with my supervisor about problems my
request may cause
Act very humbly when making my request
Act in a friendly manner prior to asking for what
I want
Make supervisor feel good about me before making my
request
Wait until supervisor appears in a good mood before
making a request
Make supervisor feel important
2. Exchange: 0.72
Offer to help if supervisor would do what I want
Remind supervisor of past favors that I did for him/her
Offer an exchange
Offer to make a personal sacrifice if supervisor would
do what I want
Do personal favors for the supervisor
3. Assertiveness: 0.64
Set a time deadline for supervisor to do what I ask
Point out that the rules require that the supervisor
complies
Have a showdown in which I confront the supervisor
Repeatedly remind the supervisor about what I want
Become a nuisance
Express anger verbally
4. Rationality: 0.74
Use logic to convince supervisor
Explain the reasons for the requests
Present supervisor with information in support of my
point of view
5. Upward Appeal: 0.63
Obtain the informal support of higher-ups in organization
File a report about my supervisor with the higher-ups
Send the supervisor to higher-ups
Make a formal appeal to higher-ups to back up my requests
6. Coalitions: 0.43
Obtain the support of coworkers to back up my request
Obtain the support of subordinates to back up my request
146
TABLE 9
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN POWER AND INFLUENCE SCALES
Refe- Legit- Coer- Exp- Rew-
rent imate cive ert ard
Ingratiation .05 .11 . 36** .07 - .12
Exchange - .10 . 32**
. 39***
.21 .20
Assertiveness - .03 .10 .11 - .24 .04
Rationality - .05 .04 .08 .15 - .06
Upward Appeal - .29* .13 .09 - .28* .19
***: p < .01
** : p < .05
* : p < .10
147
TABLE 10
STRUCTURAL EQUATION COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS,
AND ZETAS
Ingratia Exch Assert Ration Upward
tion ange iveness ality Appeal
Referent
--- --- --- --- ---
Legitimate
---
.23 .41
--- ---
(.14) (.16)
Coercive
--- --- --- --- ---
Expert
--- --- ---
.23
---
(.15)
Reward - .30
--- ---
- .40
---
(.15) (.15)
Zeta .09 .06 .17 .17 .03
Standard errors shown in parentheses.
148
Model
TABLE 11
MODEL COMPARISONS
Chi-square d.f. Significance
Null Model (MO) 35.75 25 p - .07
Initial Model (Ml) 21.42 15 p - .12
Final Model (MF) 13.17 20 p = .87
MO - Ml 14.33 10 p > .15
MO - MF 22.58 5 p < . 01
Ml - MF 8.25 5 p < .01
Coefficient of Determination — .458
Chi-Square = 13.17 with 20 degrees of freedom
Goodness of fit = .838
149
FIGURE 1
LITERATURE BASED MODEL OF POWER BASE TO INFLUENCE TACTICS RELATIONSHIPS
POWER BASES INFLUENCE TACTICS
.17 (.19)
Referent
Ingratiation
.-.22 (.19)
Legitimate Exchange
.02 (.20)
Coercive
♦ Assertiveness
.08 (.15)
Expert
> Rational
-.34 (.16) _>06 (20)
Reward
Upward Appeal
in
o .
FIGURE 2
FINAL MODEL OF POWER BASE TO INFLUENCE TACTICS RELATIONSHIPS
LOWER BASES INFLUENCE TACTICS
Ingratiation
Referent
> Exchange
.41 (.16)
Assertiveness
Coercive
.30 (.1 5 )
Rational
Expert
-.40 (.15)
Upward Appeal
Reward
APPENDIX A
Outline of Interview Schedule
1. Introduc t ion.
2. Summary of study.
3. Question about tenure with the agency and at the job.
4. Question about the nature of their job.
5. Question about the philosophy of the agency.
6. Discuss the means to abide by the philosophy. This
discussion should revolve around issues of job skills, reward
systems, promotion policies, problem solving mechanisms,
authority system, division of labor and the measurement of
performance. ;
I
7. Question about the changes that might have taken place in |
the agency since their joining the firm.
8. Discuss the same issues at the departmental level.
9. Question about the norms of behavior both at the agency
level and at the departmental level.
10. Discuss whether these norms were'made explicit to the
employees and how they were aware of them.
11. Ask the respondents whether these norms of behavior were
unique to them and their department or agency-wide.
12. Ask about how they express themselves in group decision
making and about the uniqueness of that style.
13. Finally, ask them if they feel that there would be a |
consensus on the points they made in the interviews.
152
APPENDIX B
OR GANI Z AT I ONAL SURVEY
University of Southern California
Annenberg School of Conmunications
Fall 1985
153
Dear P articipant:
Most people believe that th e ir employing organization plays an
important part in th eir liv e s. However, the precise nature of the
organization's impact on interpersonal interactions has not been
given much consideration. A research team at the University of
Southern California is currently investigating how an organization's
c h a ra c te ristie s influence th e ir employee's behaviors. W e would
like to ask for your help in this research.
W e have assembled a set of questions asking you to describe how you
deal with other people in your organization. W e also request
information about several c h a ra c te ristie s of your organization.
These questions are designed to allow you to present a variety of
opinions. Each opinion is valuable in i t s e l f and there are no rig h t
or wrong answers.
Your individual responses are solely for research purposes and will
be kept completely confidential. To ensure anonymity, please do
NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Analysis of the
information you provide will be conducted at USC. Results will be
provided to the agency in summary form ONLY so that no individuals
can be id e n tifie d . Summary reports will also be available to you
upon request.
Once you have completed the questionnaire, please place i t in the
envelope provided, seal i t , and return i t to the person who gave
you the questionnaire. The envelopes will be opened at USC by the
research ers.
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Sirish S. Mani
Principal Investigator
154
PART A j
Departmental A ff ilia tio n j
I
I
1. Which department do you currently work in? (Check one) CARD 1
1. Accounts Services
2. Creative
3. Media
4. Accounting
5..
Admi n istra ti ve
6. Production
7. T raffic
8. Other (Fil.1 in)
2. How long have you worked in your current department? (4)
y e a r s _____________months
i
155
PART B
Agency and Department C haracteristics
Below are a l i s t of statements which describe properties of an organization.
F irst, read each d escriptive statement. For answer A, decide how much you
agree that the statement describes your agency. Circle the number to the
right of answer A below which best f i t s your response. Then, decide how much
the statement describes your department. Circle the number to the right of
answer B which best f i t s your response. Please use the scale below in making
your response.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
4 * Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
For example:
1. Being ta ll is important in . . .
A. The agency ............................................ 1 2 3 4
B................Your department ............................................ 1 CD 3 4 5
If you strongly agree that being ta ll is important in your agency, as a whole
you would c ir c le number 5 in answer A. If you disagree that being ta ll is
important in your department, you would c ir c le number 2 in answer B.
1. Doing unique advertising is very important in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (6)i
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (7)
2. Making money is extremely important in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (8)
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (9)
3. Enjoying one's work is extremely important in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (10):
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (11 )1
4. Interpersonal s k i l l s are required of people in . . .
A. The agency .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (12 ) j
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (13),'
156
5. You are required to be able to analyze information in . . .
A. The agency ......................................................... 1 2 3 4
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4
6. You are required to be able to think clea r ly in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
B. Your department ....................................................... 1 2 3 4
7. Work experience is important to be hired in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
8. Your department ..................................................... 1 2 3 4
8. Employees are expected to handle large amounts of stress in ..
A. The agency ................................................'................. 1 2 3 4
B. Your department ................................................... 1 2 3 4
9. A good sense of humor is required of employees in __
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4
10. The system of authority is formal, in practice, in . . .
A. The agency ............................................... ................ 1 2 3 4
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4
11. Problems are discussed d ir e c tly with your supervisor in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
B. Your department ................................................... 1 2 3 4
12. Most communicating is done through memos in __
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4
13. Ideas can be freely discussed with anybody you choose in . . .
A. The agency ........................................................... 1 2 3 4
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4
14. Monetary rewards are frequently given for good performance in
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4
(14)
(15)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(2 1)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32) {
(33)1
(34)
(35)
157
15. Good performance is often recognized through public compliments in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (35)
B. Your department ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (37)
16. Year-end bonuses are frequently given in . . .
A. The agency .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 (39)
B. Your department ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (40)
17. Good work is recognized in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (41)
B. Your department ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (42)
18. Job openings within the agency are f i r s t made known to current employees
in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (43»)
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (44i)
19. Task performance is very important for promotion within . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (45)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (46)
20. Employees are expected to handle problems amongst themselves in . . . I
1
A. The agency ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (47)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (48)
21. People from outside the agency are given preference when f i l l i n g !
vacancies by . . .
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (50)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (51)
22. You are expected to perform only your own job requirements by . . .
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (52j)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (53)
23. You are expected to resolve problems you encounter on your own in . . .
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (54:)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (55)
j
153
24. You are frequently called upon to perform extra work by . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (56)
B. Your department ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (57
25. You are expected to get along with everyone in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (58)
B. Your department ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (59)
26. You are given a considerable amount of r e sp o n sib ility in . . . J
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (61 )
B. Your department ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (62)
27. Your problems are taken care of by the managers in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (63
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (64'
28. Dress codes are very informal in . . .
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (65]
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (66]
29. You are required to have p ositive attitud es i n . . . \
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (67)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (68)
30. Technical s k il l s are very important in . . . j
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (69)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (70)
31. You are expected not to be confrontational in ..,
CARD 2
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (1]
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (2]
32. You are expected to participate in social a c t iv i t i e s of . . .
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (3]
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (4'
159
33. If you want, you can work on your own . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (5)
B. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (6
34. Your performance is evaluated using objective c r it e r ia in . . .
A. The agency ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (7
8. Your department .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (8)
35. There is a lack of norms of behavior in . . .
A. The agency 1 2 3 4 5 (9)
B. Your department 1 2 3 4 5 (10)
160
1
PART C
A c tiv it ie s Toward four Supervisor
BeTow is a l i s t of statements which may be used in describing behaviors that
subordinates can d irect toward th eir supervisors. F ir st, ca refu lly read each
descriptive statement, thinking in terms of your supervisor. Then, decide to
what extent you agree that you could do th is to your supervisor. Next, c ir c le
the number which most c lo se ly resembles how you f e e l , as follows:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
I can:
1. make my supervisor feel valued ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (12)
2. make my supervisor feel lik e I approve of
him/her .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (13)
3. make my supervisor feel that s/he has
commitments to meet ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (14)
4. make my supervisor feel personally accepted 1 2 3 4 5 (15)
5. convince my supervisor about the correctness
of my point of view ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (16)
6. provide my supervisor with non-task
related information 1 2 3 4 5 (17)
7. make my supervisor's work d i f f i c u l t
for him/her .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (18)
8. share with my supervisor my considerable
experience and/or training 1 2 3 4 5 (19)
9. make things unpleasant here
for my supervisor........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (20)
10. make my supervisor recognize that
s/he has tasks to accomplish ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (21 )
11. influence my supervisor's getting
a pay raise .................................. .-............................ 1 2 3 4 5 (23)
I
161
12. make being at work d ista stefu l
for my supervisor ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (24)
13. provide my supervisor with
job-related advice ....................................................................
1 2 3 4 5 (25)
14. inform my supervisor about what is correct
behavior in the organization ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (26)
15. provide my supervisor with special b en efits ------ 1 2 3 4 5 (27)
16. influence my supervisor's getting a promotion .. 1 2 3 4 5 (28)
17. give my supervisor the feelin g that
s/he has r e s p o n s ib ilitie s to f u l f i l l ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 (29)
18. provide my supervisor with needed
technical knowledge .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (30)
19. make it d i f f i c u l t for my supervisor
to integrate into the organization ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 (31)
20. inform my supervisor as to how to deal
with other people in the organization ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 (32)
162
I
I
]
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
!
i
i
11. make him/her feel good about me before
making my request ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (45)
12. point out that the rules require that
s/he comply ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (45)
13. explain the reasons for my request .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (47 )
14. obtain the support of my subordinates to
back up my request ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 N/A (48)
15. send him/her to superiors ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (49)
16. o ffer an exchange ( e . g . , i f you do this I
for me, I will do something for you) ............................... 1 2 3 4 5 (50) J
I
17. present him/her with information in
support of my point of view .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (51) j
18. write a detailed plan that j u s t i f i e s my ideas .. 1 2 3 4 5 (52)
19. have a showdown in which I comfort
him/her face-to-face 1 2 3 4 5 (53)
20. repeatedly remind him/her about what I want . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (55)
21. wait until s/he appears in a I
receptive mood before asking ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (56)
22. make him/her feel important ( “only
you have brains, talent to do this") ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 (57 ) j
23. offer to make a personal s a c r if ic e i f s/he i
would do what I want ( e . g . , work l a t e , work
harder, do his/her share of work)...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (58)
24. become a nuisance (keep bugging him/her
until s/he does what I want) ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (59)
25. express my anger verbally ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (60)
26. do personal favors for him/her ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (61 )
27. make a formal appeal to higher lev els
to back up my request ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (62)
163
PART E
Supervisory A c tiv it ie s
1. Are there people in the agency in positions subordinate to your own? (64)
(To be subordinate these people need not d ir e c tly report to you.)
(Check one)
1. Yes
2. No
The following questions should only be answered i f there are individuals
subordinate to you. If you have answered YES to the above question, please
continue. If you have answered NO, then skip PARTS E & F and continue with
PART G.
Below is a l i s t of statements which may be used in describing behaviors that
supervisors can d irect toward their subordinates. F ir st, ca refu lly read each
descriptive statement, thinking in tqrms of those below you. Then decide to
what extent you agree that you could do this to your subordinates. Next,
c ir c le the number c lo s e s t to your response, as follows:
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8 .
I can ...............
increase subordinates' pay level
make subordinates feel valued ..
CARD 3
give subordinates undesirable job
assignments ...................................................
make subordinates feel I approve of them
make subordinates feel they have
commitments to meet ...............................................
make subordinates feel personally accepted ,
apply pressure on subordinales ...........................
help subordinates f i t into the organization
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) j
(7) I
(3)!
I
164
9. make subordinates feel important ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 (9)
10. my subordinates about what is correct
behavior in the organization ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (10)
11. give subordinates good technical suggestions . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (12)
12. make subordinate's work d i f f i c u l t for them ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (13)
13. share with subordinates my considerable
experience and/or training ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 (14)
14. convince subordinates about the correctness
of my point-of-view ..........................................: ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 (15)
15. make things unpleasant here ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (16)
16. make subordinates feel worthwhile ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (17)
17. promote subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 (18)
18. make being at work d ista stefu l .’...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (19)
19. give subordinates tip s on how to
deal with people in the organization ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 (20)
20. give subordinates the feelin g that
they have obligations to meet ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (21)
21. influence subordinates getting a pay raise 1 2 3 4 5 (23)
22. make subordinates feel lik e they
should s a tis fy their Job requirements 1 2 3 4 5 (24)
23. provide subordinates with sound
job-related advice 1 2 3 4 5 (25)
24. provide subordinates with special ben efits ' 1 2 3 4 5 (26)
25. devise clever solutions to subordinates'
job problems 1 2 3 4 5 (27)
26. influence subordinates getting a promotion 1 2 3 4 5 (28)
27. give subordinates the feelin g they
have r e s p o n s ib ilitie s to f u l f i l l 1 2 3 4 5 (29)
28. provide subordinates with needed
technical knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 (30)
165
I
29. provide subordinates with non-task
related advice .............. 1 2 3 4 5 (31 )
30. make subordinates recognize that
they have tasks to accomplish .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (32)
PART F
Supervisory Influence Tactics
This part seeks information about how you go about changing the mind of your
subordinates. Below are described various ways of doing th is . Describe how
frequently you use each t a c t i c , and c ir c le the number, most appropriate as
fo llo w s:
1 = Never
2 = Seldom
3 = About as often as not
4 = Very often
5 = Always
To influence my subordinates, I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
sympathize with them about the added
problems that my request causes ..........
threaten to give them an unsatisfactory
performance evaluation .......................................
o ffer to help i f they would do what
I want ...................................................................
act very humbly to them while making
my request ............................................................
set a time deadline for them to do
what I ask .......................................................
obtain the support of co-workers
to back up my request ........................
use lo g ic to convince them ...................
promise (or give) a salary increase
act in a friendly manner prior to
asking for what I want .............................
10. demand that they do what I request
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
11. t e l l them that the work must be done
as ordered or they should propose
a better way ...................................................... 2 3 4 5
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(45)
167
12. obtain the informal suport of higher-ups -------
13. f i l e a report about them with higher-ups ............
14. threaten their job security .............................................
15. remind them of past favors that I did for them
16. make them feel good about me before
making my request ....................................................................
17. point out that the rules require
that they c o m p ly .....................................................................
18. explain the reasons for my request ...........................
19. obtain the support of my subordinates
to back up my request ..........................................................
20. send them to my superior ...................................................
21. threaten them with lo ss of promotion ......................
22. o ffer an exchange ( e . g . , i f you do
th is for me, I will do something for you ............
23. present them with information in
support of my point-of-view ............................................
24. bawl them out ..............................................................................
25. write a d etailed plan that j u s t i f i e s
my ideas .........................................................................................
26. repeatedly remind them about what I want .............
27. wait until they appear in a receptive
mood before asking ................................................................
28. simply order them to do what is asked ..............
29. make them feel important ("only you
have the brains, talen t to do this") ......................
30. give no salary increase or prevent
them from getting a pay raise .......................................
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)1
I
(51 )|
(52)
(53)
(54)
(56)
1
I
I
(57)'
i
l
(58)
I
(59)
I
(60
(61'
(62
(63)
(64’
(65)
168
31. o ffer to make a personal s a c r if ic e i f they would
do what I want ( e . g . , work l a t e , work
harder, do your share of work).......................................... 1 2 3 4
32. do personal favors for them ............................................... 1 2 3 4
33. make a formal appeal to higher le v e ls
to back-up my request ............................................................. 1 2 3 4
169
5 (67)
5 (68)
5 (69)
PART G
Feelings Toward the Agency
Listed below are a series of statements that represent p ossible feelings that
individuals might have about the organization for which they work. With
respect to your own feelin g s about the organization for which you are now
working, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with
each statement by c ir c lin g the number which best describes your feelin g in the
column to the right of the statement.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
CARD 4
1. I am w illin g to put in a great deal of effo rt
beyond that normally expected i/i order to help
this organization be successful........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (1)
2. I talk up th is organization to my friends
as a great organization to work for ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 (2)
3. I feel very l i t t l e lo y a lty to this
organization ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (3)
4. 1 would accept almost any type of job
assignment in order, to keep working
for this organization ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (4)
5. I find that my values and the organization1s
values are very similar ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (5)
6. I am proud to t e ll others that I am
a part of th is organization ..................: .................. 1 2 3 4 5 (6)
7. I would just as well be working for a
d ifferen t organization as long as the
type of work were similar ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (7)
8. This organization rea lly inspires the
very best in me in the way of job performance .. 1 2 3 4 5 (8)
9. It would take very l i t t l e change in my
present circumstances to cause me to
leave the organization ...................... . 1 2 3 4 5 (9)
10. I am extremely glad that I chose this
organization to work for, over others I
was considering at the time I joined ... 2 3 4 5 (10)
11.
12 .
13.
14.
15.
There's not too much to be gained by
stick ing with this organization in d e fin ite ly
Often, I find it d if f i c u l t to agree with
th is organization's p o licies on important
matters relating to its employees .........................
I really care about the fate of th is
organization .......................................................
For me th is is the best of all possible
organizations for which to work .................
Deciding to work for th is organization
was a d efin ite mistake on my part . . . . .
2 3 4 5 (11)
2 3 4 5 (12)
2 3 4 5 (13)
2 3 4 5 (14)
1 2 3 4 5 (15)
171
PART H
The following questions require that you think about your experience in the
agency. Read each statement carefu lly and think to what extent the statement
r e fle c ts your own perceptions. Then c ir c le the number which most c lo s e ly
resembles your response as follows:
1 = Not at all clear
2 = Somewhat clear
3 = Moderately clear
4 = Very clear
5 = Extremely clear
To what extent are you clear about what is expected of you in this agency
with respect to: ...............................
1. you as a person ........................................... 2 3 4 5
(17)
2. you as an employee ............ ....................... .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (18)
3. your task .......................................................... .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (19)
4. appropriate behavior .............................. .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (20)
When working with other people in the agency, sometimes c o n flic ts and disputes i
a r is e . Think to what extent the e f fe c ts of these co n flic ts and disputes are i
p o sitiv e or negative on each of the factors lis t e d below. Then c ir c le the
number which most c lo se ly resembles your response as follows: I
1 = Generally negative
2 = S lig h tly negative
3 = Neither negative nor positive
4 = SIightly p o sitiv e
5 * Generally p ositive
1. The e ffe c ts of c o n flic ts and disputes on my
a b ilit y to work with others are ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 (22]
2. The e f fe c ts of c o n flic ts and disputes a ffe c t the
a b ilit y to perform as a team are ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (23]
3. The e f f e c t s of co n flic ts and disputes on our
a b ilit y to accomplish our goals are ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 (24)
There are a number of d iffer en t ways in which people find out about what is
expected of them. For each of the sources lis te d below, indicate how
frequently you find out about expectations of you from that source. Please ;
use the following scale: !
1 = Never
2 = Seldom
3 = About as often as not
4 = Very often
5 = Always
1. How frequently do you find out about what is expected of you as a person,
from:
a. Printed material .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (26)
b. Management .................................................................*— 1 2 3 4 5 (27)
c. Your immediate supervisor ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (28)
d. Your co-workers ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (29)!
e. Your in it ia l employment interview ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (30);
i
|
2. How frequently do you find out about what is expected o f you as an !
employee, from:
a . Printed material ............................................ . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5. (32)
b. Management ............................................................ . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (33)
c. Your immediate supervisor ........................ . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (34)
d. Your co-workers ................................................ 2 3 4 5 (35)
e. Your in it ia l employment interview . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (35)
How
to
frequently do you find out about what
your task, from:
is expected of you with respect
i
1
a. Printed material ............................................ . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (38);
b. Management ..........................................................
. . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (39)'
c. Your immediate supervisor ...................... . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (40),
d. Your co-workers .............................................. . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (41)
e . Your in it ia l employment interview .. . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (42)'
173
4. How frequently do you find out about what is expected of you with respect
to appropriate behavior, from:
a . Printed material ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 (44)
b. Management ...................................................................... 3 4 5 (45)
c . Your immediate s u p e r v i s o r .................................. 1 2 3 4 5 (46)
d. Your co-workers .......................................................... 3 4 5 (47)
e. Your in it ia l employment interview ............... 1 2 3 4 5 (48)
i
i
I
1
I
J
I
I
i
i
174
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
The following questions provide useful background information for our
research. However, you may e le c t not to respond to one or more of them if you
have reservations.
1. Gender (check one): ______ 1. Female 2. Male (51)
2. What is your current job t i t l e at RW D?
____________________________________ (52-53)
3. How long have you worked at R W D?
___________ Years and ___________ Months (54-57)
4. How long have you worked at your current job?
Years and Months (58-61)
!
This completes the questionnaire. Please check to make sure that you have n o t 1
accidentally skipped any questions. Then place the questionnaire in the
enclosed self-addressed envelope, SEAL THE ENVELOPE, and return i t to the
person who gave i t to you.
Thank you very much for your participation and your time in th is research.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A system of participation and allocation preferences in organizations

PDF

Causes, consequences, and moderating factors of career plateauing.

PDF

A dynamic reformulation of perceptions of inequity: Their organizational antecedents and outcomes

PDF

Communicating via electronic mail: Patterns and predictors of use in organizations

PDF

Information sharing in work groups: A transactive memory approach

PDF

A structural equivalence and contingency theory perspective on media usage and communication performance: The case of voice messaging

PDF

Correlates of deceit: A cross-cultural examination

PDF

Knowledge sharing in Chinese surgical teams

PDF

Bringing social worlds together: Information systems as catalysts for new interactions in health care organizations

PDF

Communication during physical intimacy: A theoretical and methodological study of communication competence

PDF

AIDS preventive sexual behavior in college students: An empirical test of the health belief model

PDF

Building a model of organization acculturation: an interpretive study of organizational culture and stories

PDF

Allocative and opportunity structures and their interaction with career orientation.

PDF

A critical analysis of ideology and discourse in two hotels

PDF

Communication practices and organizational change: The structuring of process improvement experiences

PDF

Demand characteristics for telephone among a community of senior citizens: A communications approach

PDF

Communicating at the bonding stage of relationships: The role of self-disclosure and relational competence in dyadic adjustment.

PDF

Interorganizational knowledge networks: the case of the biotechnology industry

PDF

Computers and political communication: Innovation in political campaign organizations

PDF

A multidimensional approach to political information seeking and political participation

Asset Metadata

Creator Mani, Sirish S (author)

Core Title An organizational culture approach to the study of individual power and its use

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication Theory and Research

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, organizational

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Fulk, Janet (committee chair), Rice, Ronald (committee member), Riley, Patricia (committee member), Von Glinow, Mary Ann (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-715136

Unique identifier UC11343867

Identifier DP22432.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-715136 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22432.pdf

Dmrecord 715136

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mani, Sirish S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA